- SEC argues the court lacks jurisdiction over Keener’s motion since the Ripple case is under appeal at the Second Circuit.
- Keener failed to file a motion to intervene, making his attempt to submit evidence procedurally improper, the SEC contends.
- SEC deems Keener’s evidence unnecessary, stating Ripple can independently evaluate and present supporting documents.
The ongoing SEC v.s Ripple legal battle has had a new twist, as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) formally opposed an emergency motion filed by Justin W. Keener.
Keener, a non party to the case, had requested permission to present documents that he claimed could support Ripple’s defense. His request, filed with Judge Analisa Torres, aimed to introduce what he referred to as “decisive evidence” addressing the classification of XRP under current securities laws.
In response, the SEC requested that the court completely deny the motion. SEC lawyer Benjamin Hanauer contended in a letter filed on April 8, 2025, that the court no longer had jurisdiction over the case because it is presently being appealed to the Second Circuit.
SEC Points to Jurisdictional Limits
The SEC’s response focused first on the issue of jurisdiction. According to the Commission, Judge Torres cannot accept Keener’s request because the summary judgment order is now being reviewed by a higher court.
Citing the Second Circuit precedent, Hanauer wrote that the district court is barred from acting on issues involved in an appeal once it is filed. This jurisdictional barrier, the SEC argues, invalidates any attempt to reopen matters at the district level.
Beyond jurisdiction, the SEC also questioned the legal standing of Keener’s filing. The letter noted that Keener never filed a proper motion to intervene, a necessary step for a non party to participate in the case.
The SEC stated that even if the court were to interpret the request as an attempt to intervene, it would still be inappropriate. Previously, the court had rejected similar intervention attempts by third parties who sought to introduce evidence favoring Ripple’s position.
SEC Challenges Relevance and Necessity of Documents
In its third point, the SEC challenged the necessity of Keener’s proposed evidence. The agency said Ripple has the capability to evaluate and present any information that could benefit its case.
The letter explained that Keener is free to share his documents directly with Ripple’s legal team, which can decide whether to use them. The Commission emphasized that the court had previously determined that Ripple is competent enough to manage its own defense strategy.
Keener’s filing did not specify the exact content of his evidence, which he claimed relates to the evolution of investment contract definitions under U.S. securities law. He argued that regulatory policies built on the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 no longer reflect the reality of modern financial outlook.
While he believes the documents prove the outdated nature of these legal standards, the absence of detailed disclosures left legal experts unsure of the evidence’s potential impact.
Keener Links His Past Legal Case to Ripple’s Defense
Keener’s request also referenced his personal experience with the SEC. In a previous case, he was fined over $10 million for operating as an unregistered broker in the penny stock market.
In his letter, he claimed to have spent over $15 million on legal defense costs. He linked his regulatory dispute with the broader issues raised in the Ripple case, alleging both were made by outdated interpretations of securities law.
Additionally, Keener highlighted the scale of Ripple’s legal battle by citing the company’s reported $225 million in legal costs. His filing suggested that this financial toll shows the need for reform in how enforcement is carried out.
However, as of now, Judge Torres has not ruled on whether his emergency motion will be accepted or even reviewed. The case is under appeal, and the timing of Keener’s submission continues to draw attention.
