Does the Ripple ruling bind other courts or settle the status of other tokens?

The full answer

The Ripple ruling does not bind other courts, and it did not decide the status of any other token. On July 13, 2023 Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York held that XRP “is not in and of itself” an investment contract, that Ripple’s Institutional Sales were investment contracts, and that its Programmatic Sales on exchanges were not.[1] That answer covered XRP and Ripple’s own sales, on the facts of that case. What it means for XRP itself is on is XRP a security.

Why doesn’t one judge’s ruling decide the question for everyone?

It came from a trial court. Skadden wrote at the time that “this decision, while significant, is by only one district court judge and how other judges, districts, and circuits view these legal issues is currently unknown.”[2] A later trial judge can weigh it as persuasive and still decide the other way.

The opinion also limited itself. In footnote 16 the court said it “does not address whether secondary market sales of XRP constitute offers and sales of investment contracts,” and that the answer “would depend on the totality of circumstances and the economic reality of that specific contract, transaction, or scheme.”[1]

Which courts disagreed with the Ripple reasoning, and which agreed?

The split over exchange sales showed up within weeks.

• Disagreed, July 31, 2023. In SEC v. Terraform Labs, in the same court, Judge Jed Rakoff wrote that “Howey makes no such distinction between purchasers.”[3]
• Disagreed, March 27, 2024. In SEC v. Coinbase, also in the same court, Judge Katherine Polk Failla found “little logic to the distinction Defendants attempt to draw between the reasonable expectations of investors who buy directly from an issuer and those who buy on the secondary market.”[4]
• Agreed, June 28, 2024. In SEC v. Binance, in the District of Columbia, Judge Amy Berman Jackson “found Ripple’s rationale more persuasive,” according to Fenwick, and dismissed the SEC’s claims based on “other parties’ subsequent sales of BNB,” Binance’s token.[5]

Each of these rulings came early in its case, on whether the SEC’s claims could proceed. None of them is binding on the others.

Why did no appeals court settle the split?

The cases that could have reached an appeals court ended first. On August 7, 2025 the SEC and Ripple dismissed their cross-appeals in the Second Circuit, and the district court judgment stayed in effect.[6] On February 27, 2025 the SEC dismissed its case against Coinbase and said the decision “does not reflect the Commission’s position on any other case” and did not rest “on any assessment of the merits.”[7]

So as of September 29, 2026 the question the Ripple ruling raised about exchange sales has trial-court answers pointing both ways, and no appeals court answer. That is a reading of the rulings above, not a court’s statement.

Does the ruling say anything about the status of other tokens?

Not directly. The court judged XRP and Ripple’s specific sales, and said even XRP resales would turn on their own facts.[1]

The broader list that other tokens now point to comes from the SEC, not from the court. Release 33-11412, effective March 23, 2026, names 16 tokens as examples of digital commodities, including bitcoin, ether, solana and XRP.[8] The same release says a non-security asset “can be offered and sold subject to an investment contract, which is a security,” so a token on the list can still be sold in a deal that falls under securities law.[8] The Bitwise XRP ETF’s September 18, 2026 filing with the SEC says the release “is not binding on courts or other regulatory authorities.”[9]

That leaves XRP’s position resting on one final judgment plus agency guidance. What remains open for XRP after the lawsuit is on what’s still unresolved now that the lawsuit is over, and the ways that position could change are on could XRP’s regulatory position reverse.