Third Circuit Faults SEC for Failing to Reasonably Explain Denial of Rulemaking Petition on Digital Asset Securities

On Jan. 13, 2025, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or the Commission) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it offered only a one-paragraph explanation for its refusal “to promulgate rules clarifying how and when the federal securities laws apply to digital assets like cryptocurrencies and tokens.”

On Jan. 13, 2025, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it offered only a one-paragraph explanation for its refusal “to promulgate rules clarifying how and when the federal securities laws apply to digital assets like cryptocurrencies and tokens.” Coinbase, Inc. v. SEC, No. 23-3202, 2025 WL 78330, at *1 (3d Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) (Ambro, J.).

Although the panel stopped short of ordering the SEC to grant a rulemaking petition that had been made by Coinbase Global — and instead remanded to the agency for a more reasoned explanation of its refusal — a concurring opinion by Judge Stephanos Bibas stated that the SEC’s decision to regulate crypto only through enforcement actions and adjudications deprived crypto companies, like Coinbase, of constitutional fair notice. Id. at *20 – *29 (Bibas, J., concurring).

Although the SEC may seek rehearing en banc or file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, the newly minted Republican majority at the SEC under Chairman-Designee Paul Atkins is expected to be far friendlier to the crypto industry than outgoing Chairman Gary Gensler was. That may lead the SEC to accept Coinbase’s petition and engage in the notice-and-comment rulemaking that many in the industry have been seeking in their quest to obtain regulatory certainty.

Factual BackgroundAfter taking a light touch to digital assets in crypto’s early years and mostly focusing on fraud cases that “incidentally involved Bitcoin,” the SEC took its first steps toward evaluating whether digital assets themselves are securities in 2017. Id. at *2. At that point, the SEC turned its attention to transactions like “Initial Coin Offerings” and “Token Sales,” to the extent that they involved the use of digital assets as “investment contracts,” which the SEC claimed made them subject to the federal securities laws under the Howey test. Id.[1]  As Judge Bibas summarized in his concurrence, during this 2017 – 2022 period, the SEC mostly “focused on crypto assets that worked just like stock,” while bringing some enforcement actions against “a few utility tokens” under “[t]he premise . . . that utility tokens sold in initial coin offerings would appreciate.” Id. at *26 (Bibas, J., concurring).

In July 2022, Coinbase, a trading platform that facilitates the exchange of digital assets (including various cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum and Chainlink), petitioned the SEC “to propose new rules addressing how and when digital assets qualify as securities subject to existing securities laws.” Id. at *4. The petition followed multiple public pronouncements by the SEC in preceding years, in which the Commission expressed its belief that the federal securities laws apply to digital assets. Id. at *2 – *4.

In its petition, “Coinbase expressed its view that the existing securities-law framework is “fundamentally incompatible with the operation of digital asset securities” and urged the SEC to adopt new rules tailored specifically to digital assets.” Id. at *4. The SEC ultimately denied Coinbase’s petition in December 2023, confining its reasoning to a single paragraph that cited generalized responses about workability, resource allocation issues and preferences for incremental action:

The Commission disagrees with the Petition’s assertion that application of existing securities statutes and regulations to crypto asset securities, issuers of those securities, and intermediaries in the trading, settlement, and custody of those securities is unworkable. Moreover, the Commission has discretion to determine the timing and priorities of its regulatory agenda, including with respect to discretionary rulemaking such as that requested in the Petition. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 527 (2007). Any consideration of whether and, if so, how to alter the existing regulatory regime may be informed by, among other things, data and information provided by numerous undertakings directly or indirectly relating to crypto asset securities that the Commission is currently pursuing. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that it is appropriate to deny the Petition. The Commission is also engaged in many undertakings that relate to regulatory priorities extending well beyond crypto asset securities. The requested regulatory action would significantly constrain the Commission’s choices regarding competing priorities, and the Commission declines to undertake it at this time.

Id. at *5.

While the petition was pending at the SEC, the SEC “expanded its enforcement agenda” to companies in the crypto space, including digital-asset exchanges like Coinbase. Id. at *4. That included filing an ongoing enforcement action against Coinbase for operating as an unregistered broker, exchange and clearing agency in June 202