The House approved on July 16 a motion to reconsider the crypto‑related proposals package combining the GENIUS Act, the CLARITY Act, and the Anti‑CBDC Surveillance Act in a 215-211 vote.

Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, said on X that analysts expect a vote on the GENIUS Act today.

Because the House agreed to a Senate‑passed resolution text that bundles the three measures procedurally, but does not itself constitute enrolled statutory language. As a result, the package does not go directly to the President. 

The approval positions House and Senate leaders to move the underlying bills individually, fold them into another legislative vehicle, or draft a consolidated conference substitute that can clear both chambers in identical statutory form for presidential action.

Since this was a procedural bundle rather than a single formal bill, the next step requires converting the package into enactable legislation. 

Committees or leadership can discharge, mark up, or attach the component measures to moving vehicles.

Crypto Package Setback on July 15

House leaders advanced GENIUS for floor action one day after members rejected a rule that would have packaged the same three digital asset measures with the annual defense appropriation. 

President Donald Trump urged Republicans on Truth Social on July 15 to support that combined rule, writing that passage would keep the United States “lightyears ahead” of China and Europe on digital asset policy. 

Libertarian‑leaning and House Freedom Caucus members objected to the bundling and pressed for stand‑alone debate time. 

Representative Chip Roy told reporter Laura Weiss he wants “a hard ban” on a US central bank digital currency and ranked the CLARITY Act as equally important, saying opponents “need to be dealing with this all at once.”

Mentioned in this article

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

With just days remaining before a pivotal status update is due in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the XRP lawsuit between Ripple Labs and the US Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC) case has once again entered a high-stakes phase. As of June 5, neither Ripple nor the Securities and Exchange Commission has refiled their joint request to amend the final judgment—an omission that could force the appeals court to resume briefing on unresolved issues.

The procedural logjam began on May 15, when Judge Analisa Torres of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion for an indicative ruling. “If jurisdiction were restored to this Court,” Torres wrote, “the Court would deny the parties’ motion as procedurally improper.” Both Ripple and the SEC had sought the court’s signal that it would be willing to vacate the longstanding injunction if remanded.

XRP community lawyer Fred Rispoli immediately weighed in, noting that the denial was less about substance and more about flawed procedure. “The meaning here is that the parties didn’t request relief under the right rule of civil procedure,” he explained at the time. “So they will refile it under the correct rule but, me reading between the lines, is that Ripple and the SEC need to get on all fours and beg for relief.”

Ticking Clock In XRP Lawsuit

Now, nearly three weeks later, no refile has appeared on the docket, prompting renewed speculation and concern. “Twenty days later, no refile yet by SEC and Ripple in district court and the June 16 deadline for the status update in the 2nd Circuit looms large,” Rispoli wrote on June 4.

“Expect the refile before Judge Torres to happen by then. If there is nothing pending before Torres when the parties file the status report, the 2nd Circuit only has Torres’ denial of the first request and will restart the briefing. If a motion is pending before Torres at the time of the 6/16 status report, the 2nd Circuit will likely push it out another 60 days,” he added.

While the parties remain officially silent, legal observers are increasingly focused on the political and institutional implications of this delay. “What is the next step?” Rispoli asked rhetorically. “The message by Torres was clear that both parties need to beg for forgiveness. Ripple will say whatever to get it done—but how much public groveling is the SEC willing to do? And how much groveling will be authorized? We have 12 days to find out.”

That sentiment was echoed by community members, including @xrp_hodl_r (Random Shark), who stressed the difficulty of the task at hand. “I don’t think that many of the respondents to this post realize what a high bar it is to convince a judge to amend a final judgement,” he wrote. “I suspect that both the SEC and Ripple will utilize all of the allotted time to prepare their detailed briefs.”

Rispoli agreed with the procedural point. “It is a very high bar,” he wrote, “but that is because usually only one side wants to amend the judgment. The parties thought, and I did too, that because both sides wanted the same thing that she would go along.”

The broader context makes the current impasse even more critical. With the SEC under new leadership and proposed crypto legislation advancing in Congress, both parties may have incentive to wrap the litigation quietly. But Judge Torres appears unwilling to rubber-stamp a compromise that lacks rigorous justification.

James Farrell, General Counsel at JST Digital, added further nuance to the legal dilemma. “They don’t need her permission to settle the $ or drop the appeals,” he clarified. “It’s only to vacate the obey-the-law injunction. Hand waving ‘new admin, new policy, fairness, SEC ok with it’—not gonna cut it with ‘why is it tough to do what the injunction requires, which is just don’t go crime-ing.’”

As of now, the June 16 deadline stands as a moment of truth. If no refile reaches Judge Torres by then, the case could revert to a new appellate battle—undoing months of attempted resolution and extending the legal shadow that has loomed over XRP for years.

At press time, XRP traded at $2.19.

Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.