SC Rejects Sackler Family’s $6B Opioid Settlement

SC Rejects Sackler Family’s $6B Opioid Settlement

Introduction

The U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned a contentious settlement that would have allocated billions of dollars to treatment programs and victims of the opioid epidemic.

This decision, which blocks the Sackler family from receiving protection against future lawsuits, highlights ongoing legal and ethical debates surrounding the family's role in the crisis.

Justice wrote the majority opinion for the 5-4 decision, stating that the Sacklers were seeking more extensive relief than what is typically granted in bankruptcy cases. He noted that the family hoped to eliminate claims related to wrongful death and fraud without contributing a significant portion of their assets. "Describe the relief the Sacklers seek how you will, nothing in the bankruptcy code contemplates (much less authorizes) it," he wrote.

In contrast, another justice who dissented warned that the court's ruling would have a "devastating" effect on the thousands of victims affected by the opioid epidemic. She emphasized that these victims would be deprived of the substantial monetary recovery they had fought for over years of litigation. Chief Justice and the court's liberal justices joined in dissent.

She urged Congress to amend U.S. bankruptcy law to address the repercussions of the court's decision, which she predicted would lead to significant harm. She stressed that the issue should be carefully examined by lawmakers to prevent further chaos.

The justice pointed out that the bankruptcy law does not explicitly grant courts the authority to allow third parties, like the Sacklers, to evade future liability. While acknowledging that this decision might disrupt Purdue Pharma's current reorganization plan, he suggested that increased legal exposure for the Sacklers could result in better terms in future negotiations. He referenced an argument from the Justice Department, noting that "if past is prologue," there could be a more favorable deal on the horizon.

The case revolves around Purdue Pharma and its executives, who were instrumental in the production and promotion of OxyContin, a highly addictive opioid. This drug played a significant role in the opioid crisis, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States and caused widespread devastation.

As part of a proposed settlement, the Sackler family had agreed to pay $6 billion to affected families and states. In return, they sought immunity from future civil liability claims. Purdue Pharma had marketed OxyContin as a safer, less addictive painkiller, promoting its use for extended periods and for more common injuries. This strategy contributed to the Sacklers' wealth and their reputation for philanthropy.

However, lawsuits and media reports revealed that the Sackler family continued to push OxyContin even after becoming aware of its addictive potential. This led not only to widespread addiction but also to many individuals turning to heroin and other opioids when they could no longer access the prescription drug. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 645,000 people died from opioid overdoses between 1999 and 2021.

In concluding his opinion, the justice acknowledged the complex policy issues at play but emphasized that it is not the court's role to resolve them. He argued that Congress should determine whether third parties can be shielded from future lawsuits, underscoring that the court's responsibility is to interpret and apply the law as it stands. He concluded, "nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge," reaffirming the court's decision to reject the settlement that would have protected the Sacklers from future legal claims.