Gemini and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission finally found something to agree on. A federal judge in New York was not persuaded.
On October 15, 2026, US District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied a joint motion from Gemini Trust Company and the CFTC to vacate a consent order entered in January 2025. That order carried a $5 million civil monetary penalty and a permanent injunction. Both remain in effect.
What the court decided
The case sits in the Southern District of New York. Gemini and the CFTC jointly asked the court to wipe out the consent order that ended their dispute.
Judge Hellerstein ruled that the two sides failed to show sufficient grounds for vacatur under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Rule 60 is the provision courts use when a party wants to undo a final judgment.
The judge put weight on the timeline. Gemini voluntarily agreed to settle just three weeks before the case was scheduled to go to trial.
The arguments offered for reversal centered on internal CFTC reviews and shifts in digital asset policy. In the court’s view, those points did not satisfy the strict requirements for reopening a settled judgment.
The $5 million penalty has already been paid. No refund was sought or granted. The real stakes were the order itself and the permanent injunction, which bars Gemini from making false or misleading statements to the CFTC.
How a 2017 dispute landed in a 2026 courtroom
The CFTC filed its lawsuit in 2022, alleging that Gemini made false or misleading statements back in 2017.
Those statements concerned a Bitcoin futures contract that relied on Gemini’s auction prices for settlement. The CFTC’s theory was that what Gemini told the agency about that setup did not match reality.
The parties settled in January 2025. The consent order imposed the $5 million penalty and the injunction.
Then the CFTC took a second look at its own work. An internal review suggested the original complaint should not have been filed. It also indicated the case might not be pursued under the agency’s current enforcement standards.
The review cited two problems. One was a whistleblower it described as not credible. The other was a shift in the agency’s enforcement priorities.
The CFTC also identified Gemini as a “fraud victim” in related disputes.
Armed with that review, the agency and the exchange filed together to vacate the order. Judge Hellerstein still said no. The consent judgment, along with its penalty and injunction, stands.
What this means for Gemini, the CFTC and everyone else
For Gemini, the injunction stays on the books, and the company keeps operating under an order that prohibits false or misleading statements to its regulator.
There is also the reputational layer. Gemini now has an internal CFTC review that questions the case, sitting alongside a court order that still says the settlement holds. Both documents exist at once, and only one of them is binding.
For the CFTC, the ruling draws a line around how far a policy shift can reach. An agency can revise its priorities and decline to bring similar cases. Reaching back to erase a judgment it already obtained is a different matter, because that judgment belongs to the court.
Gemini settled three weeks out from trial and later tried to reverse course alongside the regulator itself. The court treated the original decision to settle as the one that counted.
Disclosure: This article was edited by John Chen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.