Legal expert Bill Morgan, known for his pro-$XRP

, suggested that District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's recent ruling in the Binance case strengthens the argument that XRP is not a security. Judge Jackson cited Judge Analisa Torres' ruling in #RippleTrends in dismissing the #SECCrypto v. #binance portion of the case.

In her Friday ruling, Judge Jackson rejected the SEC's claim that secondary market sales of Binance's token constituted securities. The ruling emphasizes the need to distinguish between digital coins themselves and offers to sell them.

In support of this view, Judge Jackson cited several district court cases involving SEC enforcement actions regarding cryptocurrencies, where courts distinguished between purported investment contracts and tokens.

One of the references was a statement by Judge Torres in the Ripple case, which noted that the #XRPcryptowolf token itself is not an investment contract. Justice Jackson found that each of these distinctions was consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of an "investment contract" within the definition of a "security."

In a commentary on coverage of Judge Jackson's decision, Morgan criticized CoinDesk for failing to acknowledge that Judge Torres was one of the judges whose remarks Judge Jackson found to be clarifying and persuasive in distinguishing between the crypto asset itself and the purported investment contracts.

To highlight its significance, the legal expert argued that the decision bolsters the argument that XRP itself is not a security, as Judge Torres ruled on July 13, 2023.

In another tweet, Morgan emphasized the importance of Judge Jackson's decision, noting his agreement with Judge Torres' interpretation of the third prong of the Howey test, which concerns the expectation of profit based on the efforts of others.

He noted that this reasoning was preferable to Judge Rakoff's approach in the Terraform case, which did not distinguish between institutional and programmatic token buyers.