Prominent pro-XRP attorney John Deaton has recently announced that he will not be filing an amicus brief in favor of Coinbase’s request, citing specific reasons related to the primary issue of the motion. In a tweet, Deaton elaborated on his decision, highlighting the law’s limited scope surrounding the jurisdiction of digital assets.
As a well-known figure in the XRP community, Deaton explained the term “Amicus Curiae,” which translates to “Friend of the Court” in Latin. He had previously served as amicus counsel in the Ripple lawsuit, believing that the court would benefit from hearing the opinions of XRP holders. However, he expressed a different perspective regarding the Coinbase case.
The central concern for Deaton revolved around the judge’s interpretation of the law rather than presenting new information. He believed that requesting a hearing at this stage might be perceived as a mere publicity stunt, as the key issue lies within the legal framework.
Deaton acknowledged the strong legal representation that Coinbase already possessed, making him apprehensive that his brief, largely concurring with Coinbase’s stance, might need to be revised. Consequently, he concluded that the court would not significantly benefit from hearing his story under these circumstances.
Furthermore, Deaton considered the possible influence of token holders and consumers in the later stages of the case, which influenced his decision to abstain from acting early. His approach garnered support from attorney Bill Morgan, who also backs XRP.
Amicus briefs are often filed by parties not directly involved in a case but possess relevant information that could aid the court’s decision-making process. Nevertheless, Deaton’s rationale indicates that he perceives the Coinbase motion to be tightly focused on jurisdictional matters, making his input less pertinent.
The ongoing legal battle surrounding Ripple, XRP, and digital asset regulations continues to be a topic of interest for the crypto community. The outcome of the Coinbase case could have significant implications for the broader industry. How the court will handle the jurisdictional issue and how it might impact future regulatory decisions concerning digital assets remains to be seen.
Deaton’s decision not to file an amicus brief highlights digital asset regulations’ complexities and their legal implications. As the case progresses, the involvement of various stakeholders and legal experts will undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping the outcome.
