Judge rejects CFTC, Gemini bid to vacate $5 million settlement

• The CFTC and Gemini jointly sought to undo the settlement in May, arguing the complaint would not have been filed under Trump administration's friendlier crypto enforcement policies
• Gemini had already paid the $5 million civil penalty and agreed not to seek a refund if the settlement were vacated
• Judge Hellerstein noted Gemini litigated against the CFTC for over three years before voluntarily settling, and the agency's changed view does not justify vacating the agreement

Summary

A federal judge in Manhattan has rejected a joint motion by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and cryptocurrency exchange Gemini to vacate their $5 million settlement agreement. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled on Thursday that neither party met the legal standards required to set aside the settlement.

Key Details:

• The settlement, finalized in January 2025 during the Biden administration, imposed a $5 million civil penalty on Gemini, which the company has already paid
• The original CFTC lawsuit filed in 2022 alleged Gemini made false or misleading statements during the agency's review of a proposed bitcoin futures contract
• In May 2025, both parties jointly requested the settlement be vacated, citing changed enforcement priorities under the Trump administration's more crypto-friendly regulatory approach

Legal Arguments:

The CFTC and Gemini argued the 2022 complaint would not have been filed under current enforcement standards, claiming regulators "resorted to inappropriate tactics" in bringing the lawsuit. Gemini agreed not to seek a refund of the $5 million penalty if the settlement were vacated.

Court's Rationale:

Judge Hellerstein noted that Gemini had litigated against the CFTC for over three years before voluntarily agreeing to settle, and that the agency's revised view of the case does not warrant vacating the agreement.

Market Context:

Gemini Trust Co. is a cryptocurrency exchange founded by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss. The case highlights the shifting regulatory landscape for crypto companies under different presidential administrations, with Republican administrations typically taking a more lenient enforcement approach toward the sector.