US securities lawyer James Murphy has sharply criticized the Securities and Exchange Commission’s lawsuit against Ripple, saying the case over whether XRP was a security should never have been brought. The dispute formally ended in 2025, yet arguments over its legal basis and regulatory impact are still active across the crypto sector.
Murphy, known online as MetaLawMan, said most legal professionals with real expertise in digital asset law never believed XRP qualified as a security. In his view, the SEC’s enforcement action against Ripple, filed shortly before former chairman Jay Clayton left office, was misguided. He argued the lawsuit lacked merit and was not supported by sound legal reasoning.
The case ended, but the policy debate did not
The lawsuit centered on the SEC’s allegation that Ripple sold XRP without registration. During the litigation, the case had a broad effect on the crypto market and pushed a larger question into public view: how digital assets should be regulated in the United States. That question remains unresolved. The courtroom fight may be over, but its policy aftershocks continue.
The XRP community has remained vocal in defending the token and criticizing the SEC’s approach as overreaching and unfair. For many market participants, the case was never only about one token. It became a reference point for how US regulators might treat other digital assets and crypto firms facing similar scrutiny.
Ripple’s defense still shapes industry discussion
Ripple’s defense highlighted XRP’s decentralized nature and its use in cross-border payments. That argument continues to influence debate over whether the SEC has taken too aggressive a stance toward an industry that still lacks clear federal rules. Ripple secured a partial victory, but the broader uncertainty around crypto regulation did not disappear with the ruling.
As a result, the Ripple case remains central to ongoing discussions about securities law, enforcement limits, and the future framework for digital assets in the US. The legal fight may have closed, but its consequences are still being worked through by lawyers, companies, and token holders.