A US Senator and Crypto Lobbyists Persuade Court to Discharge the Case Against Coinbase

A well-known crypto-friendly US senator Cynthia Lummis, along with some professors and crypto lobbyist platforms, has requested a federal court to discharge the case against Coinbase. These parties have submitted amicus (also called the friend of the court) briefs. The filing parties have mentioned in the briefs that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission was attempting to move beyond the authority given to it.

Crypto Lobbyists and Policymaker Cynthia Lummis File Amicus Briefs, Pushing the Court to Eliminate SEC’s Case Confronting Coinbase

In this way, the SEC was surpassing its power while confronting Coinbase and other such crypto platforms with its lawsuits filed against them. Another thing mentioned in the briefs is that the SEC has categorized the crypto assets traded by the respective platforms as unregistered securities. The US agency filed lawsuits to confront Binance, Binance.US, and Coinbase in June this year.

Also Read: Coinbase Considers Expansion to Singapore as the US Regulator Denies Answerability

The amicus briefs address Katherine Polk Failla (the judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York). In addition to this, the respective amicus briefs reiterate the arguments of Coinbase that the crypto exchange noted in its motion seeking the dismissal of the SEC’s case targeting the platform.

The lobby organizations include Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz, Consumer Technology Association, Chamber of Progress, DeFi Education Fund, Chamber of Digital Commerce, Crypto Council for Innovation, and Blockchain Association. They, along with 6 academics, submitted nearly six amicus briefs, excluding the one field by the Senator.

Coinbase Asserts the Transfers Cited by the SEC Do Not Qualify as Investment Contracts At the beginning of August, the crypto exchange asserted in the motion submitted by it that the SEC referred to the transfers that did not come in the class of investment contracts. Hence, it claimed that the respective transactions did not infringe the securities laws of the United States.