The Ripple vs. SEC case continues to drag on, and many are wondering why Judge Torres simply hasn't ended the proceedings. Former SEC attorney Marc Fagel shared some interesting points on X that clarify the full picture.

The core of the matter is actually quite straightforward: Judge Torres apparently saw it as justified to continue the case because Ripple, in her view, had earned hundreds of millions of dollars through unregistered securities sales. This is not a trivial case that can be simply dropped. Fagel put it this way: Why should the judge dismiss the case when she has determined that massive illegal sums have been flowing?

Recently, something interesting happened — Judge Torres rejected a joint motion from Ripple and the SEC to end the lawsuit. As a result, Ripple withdrew its appeal and agreed to pay a $50 million fine. But that didn’t stop the debate over whether this case has achieved what the SEC actually wanted.

Of course, the question arises: Has the SEC fulfilled its core mission with this case — to protect investors, maintain fair markets, and promote capital formation? Fagel gave a clear answer: If a company is not willing to comply with federal laws, it should try to change them. Not just decide for itself which rules are important and which are not.

Another point Fagel addressed: Why wasn’t Ethereum part of this case? The answer is legally logical — a judge can only decide on cases formally brought before him. Ethereum was simply not mentioned in the Ripple lawsuit, so it played no role.

As for Judge Torres, her role in this case is essentially over. Her decision will be final once the SEC formally withdraws its appeal and submits it to the appellate court — which has not happened yet.

An important aspect of the ruling: Institutional XRP sales were classified as securities offerings. This means Ripple must either cease these sales or comply with securities laws. Well-known XRP community attorney Bill Morgan pointed out that Ripple is now preparing for a permanent injunction against these historic institutional sales. And here’s the key point: such an injunction is meant to restrict current or future conduct, not past actions. It cannot be applied to something that has already occurred.

The case demonstrates how complex regulation in the crypto world still is and how important it is to understand the legal framework. Those interested in such developments should keep an eye on the markets on Gate and follow regulatory news.