Ripple and SEC Seek to End XRP Dispute—Lawyer Sees 70% Chance Judge Will Approve Request

A top crypto lawyer predicts a 70% chance the court will approve Ripple and the SEC’s request to dissolve a key injunction and resolve financial penalties.

Ripple and SEC Request Injunction Relief—Deaton Predicts 70% Chance Court Will Approve

Attorney and crypto advocate John E. Deaton stated on June 13 via social media platform X that in the ongoing legal dispute over XRP between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Judge Analisa Torres may grant the company’s request for relief.

Ripple and the SEC jointly submitted a motion seeking an indicative ruling to dissolve a civil injunction that currently restricts access to $125 million in escrowed penalties. Under the proposed terms, $50 million would be directed to the SEC, while the remaining $75 million would return to Ripple. The motion reflects a collaborative effort to conclude the long-running conflict over XRP and aims to resolve outstanding legal and financial uncertainties. Deaton stated:

The lawyer expressed disappointment that Ripple’s legal team did not more directly acknowledge the broader context of SEC enforcement conduct, including a recent appellate ruling labeling previous SEC actions as “arbitrary and capricious,” and the Debt Box case, where SEC attorneys were sanctioned.

He noted that in Ripple’s case, Judge Sarah Netburn previously criticized the SEC’s attorneys for having “lacked faithful allegiance to the law.” He anticipated arguments citing legislative developments like CLARITY Act or GENIUS Act to underscore the changing regulatory landscape.

Deaton asserted that Ripple might have been better served by highlighting the potential competitive disadvantage it faces if an injunction persists, particularly as banking partners and counterparties might favor firms such as Circle that operate without such legal encumbrances. He concluded that the submission appeared to hinge on the political shift in leadership, summarizing the legal brief’s implied message as: “Look judge, elections have consequences, and this is one of them.”