The world of digital assets stands at a pivotal legal crossroads in 2025. Cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance (DeFi) have grown into a vast, global financial ecosystem—yet they remain one of the most ambiguously regulated markets in modern economic history. In the United States, this uncertainty has sparked a wave of high-stakes litigation that could define how digital assets are classified, traded, and governed for years to come.
At the center of this legal transformation is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has aggressively applied traditional securities laws to a wide range of crypto assets and platforms. While the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also plays a role in regulating digital commodities, it is the SEC’s enforcement actions that have ignited the most consequential court battles.
Now, with shifting political winds—including the incoming Trump administration’s promise to foster a “pro-crypto” regulatory environment—these cases take on even greater significance. The nomination of Paul Atkins, a former SEC commissioner known for supporting blockchain innovation, as the next SEC chair further signals a potential policy reversal. This backdrop makes the outcomes of key lawsuits not just legal determinations, but potential turning points for the entire digital asset industry.
Below, we explore five landmark cases poised to reshape digital asset regulation in the U.S., examining their core issues, implications, and what’s truly at stake.
SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc. (2d Cir.)
One of the most anticipated appeals in digital asset law is the SEC’s challenge to the district court’s ruling in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc. The case began in 2020 when the SEC accused Ripple of conducting an unregistered securities offering through the sale of its XRP token, applying the decades-old Howey Test—which defines an investment contract as involving (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, and (3) an expectation of profits from the efforts of others.
Ripple countered with a novel “essential ingredients” test, arguing that true investment contracts require enforceable post-sale obligations from issuers to investors. Though the court rejected this framework, it delivered a major win for Ripple by distinguishing between different types of XRP sales:
- Institutional sales: Deemed securities due to direct contracts and investor expectations tied to Ripple’s efforts.
- Programmatic sales (on exchanges): Not securities, as buyers had no direct relationship with Ripple.
- Distributions (e.g., employee compensation): Not investments of money under Howey, since no payment was made.
This July 2023 ruling was the first major judicial check on the SEC’s broad application of securities laws to crypto.
👉 Discover how regulatory clarity could unlock new opportunities in digital finance.
The SEC appealed in October 2024, arguing that even secondary market buyers expected profits from Ripple’s actions and that non-monetary consideration (like labor or services) qualifies as an “investment.” If upheld, this could expand securities liability across nearly all crypto distributions.
The Second Circuit’s decision will be the first appellate review of Howey as applied to digital assets—setting a precedent that could either rein in or empower federal regulators.
SEC v. Coinbase, Inc. (2d Cir.)
Parallel to the Ripple appeal, SEC v. Coinbase introduces another critical question: Can secondary market transactions in digital assets constitute securities trades under Howey?
In January 2025, a New York court certified an interlocutory appeal—allowing the Second Circuit to weigh in before final judgment. The case stems from the SEC’s 2023 claim that Coinbase operated as an unregistered securities exchange by facilitating trades in 13 tokens deemed investment contracts.
Crucially, the district court rejected Coinbase’s argument that Howey only applies when there’s a direct contractual link between issuer and buyer. Instead, it suggested that investor expectations—shaped by the broader “ecosystem” around a token—could sustain a securities classification even in secondary markets.
This reasoning diverges from Ripple, where programmatic sales were excluded due to lack of direct ties to Ripple. The split highlights a growing judicial divide: Should the manner of sale matter?
The interlocutory appeal offers a rare chance for early appellate guidance. Its resolution will impact every trading platform in the U.S., determining whether they must register as securities exchanges—or risk enforcement.
Moreover, the court will examine whether cryptoassets derive value primarily from their ecosystems rather than intrinsic utility—a concept that could redefine how commodities and securities are distinguished in the digital age.
Blockchain Association v. IRS (N.D. Tex.)
Shifting from enforcement to defense, the crypto industry is increasingly taking legal initiative. Blockchain Association v. IRS is one such offensive move—challenging Treasury Department rules that expand “broker” reporting requirements to DeFi participants.
Under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, brokers must report digital asset transactions on Form 1099-DA. But Treasury’s interpretation extends “broker” status far beyond traditional exchanges—to include developers, wallet providers, and front-end interfaces who may never hold customer funds.
Plaintiffs argue this exceeds statutory authority and violates constitutional protections:
- Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Rules are arbitrary and ignore technological realities.
- Fourth Amendment: Compels warrantless collection of private data.
- Fifth Amendment: Uses unconstitutionally vague standards.
Compliance costs could exceed $260 billion annually—potentially forcing U.S.-based DeFi projects to shut down or relocate.
👉 Learn how compliant innovation is shaping the future of decentralized finance.
Venue matters: The Northern District of Texas has recently ruled against federal overreach, including overturning an SEC “dealer” rule and blocking Treasury sanctions on Tornado Cash. This case could set a precedent limiting federal agencies’ ability to regulate decentralized networks through reporting mandates.
Bitnomial Exchange, LLC v. SEC (N.D. Ill.)
Another industry-led challenge comes from Bitnomial, a CFTC-regulated futures exchange seeking to list XRP futures. After completing CFTC self-certification, Bitnomial faced SEC opposition claiming XRP futures are “security futures,” requiring both XRP registration as a security and Bitnomial’s registration as a national securities exchange.
Bitnomial argues this is legally impossible:
- XRP is not registered as a security.
- Exchanges cannot register underlying assets.
- The district court already ruled anonymous XRP sales aren’t securities.
The case pits two federal regulators against each other—the CFTC and SEC—raising urgent questions about jurisdictional boundaries.
A win for Bitnomial would affirm CFTC authority over non-security futures and open doors for similar listings. A loss could freeze innovation in crypto derivatives, as most tokens aren’t SEC-registered.
This case underscores the need for clear inter-agency coordination—and may prompt Congress to clarify regulatory roles.
Kentucky et al. v. SEC (E.D. Ky.)
In a bold federalism challenge, 18 states and a blockchain association sued the SEC in November 2024, arguing that its assertion of authority over crypto trading platforms preempts state-level regulation.
Many states have developed tailored frameworks for digital assets—including licensing for money transmitters and unclaimed property rules. But if most crypto transactions are deemed securities trades, federal law overrides state requirements under the National Securities Markets Improvement Act (NSMIA).
For example:
- Kentucky treats digital asset transmitters as money services businesses.
- If those entities must register with the SEC as brokers, state licensing becomes invalid.
The states argue this undermines consumer protection and state sovereignty. The outcome could determine whether crypto regulation remains a shared responsibility—or becomes exclusively federal.
With the lawsuit filed days after the 2024 election, its trajectory may be influenced by the new administration’s stance on decentralized governance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the Howey Test and why does it matter for crypto?
A: The Howey Test is a Supreme Court standard used to determine if an asset qualifies as a security. It examines whether there’s an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits expected from others’ efforts. Its application to crypto tokens determines whether they fall under SEC regulation.
Q: Can digital assets be both commodities and securities?
A: Yes—context matters. An asset like Bitcoin is generally treated as a commodity, while tokens tied to project development may be securities depending on investor expectations and issuer involvement.
Q: How could these cases affect everyday crypto users?
A: Outcomes will shape platform availability, tax reporting obligations, and regulatory compliance—all influencing accessibility, privacy, and innovation in the U.S. market.
Q: What role does DeFi play in these lawsuits?
A: DeFi challenges traditional regulatory models because there’s no central entity. Cases like Blockchain Association v. IRS test whether regulators can impose broker-like duties on decentralized protocols.
Q: Could Congress step in to resolve this?
A: Yes—and many experts argue it should. Clear legislation could end regulatory ambiguity, but political gridlock has delayed comprehensive crypto laws.
Q: How might the Trump administration influence these cases?
A: With promises of pro-innovation policies and pro-crypto appointments like Paul Atkins at the SEC, the administration may deprioritize certain enforcement actions or shift agency positions mid-litigation.
👉 Stay ahead of regulatory shifts with tools built for compliant crypto innovation.
The legal battles unfolding across U.S. courts are more than courtroom dramas—they are foundational debates about innovation, jurisdiction, and financial freedom in the digital age. As courts interpret old laws for new technologies, their decisions will either unlock or restrict the future of digital assets in America. Market participants must stay informed, adaptable, and proactive in this evolving landscape.