https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/us/supreme-court-opioid-settlement.html Skip to contentSkip to site index U.S. Today's Paper Supreme Court * Decisions in Major Cases * Purdue Pharma Settlement * Emergency Abortions in Idaho * E.P.A.'s Air Pollution Plan * S.E.C.'s Administrative Tribunals Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load. Supreme Court * Decisions in Major Cases * Purdue Pharma Settlement * Emergency Abortions in Idaho * E.P.A.'s Air Pollution Plan * S.E.C.'s Administrative Tribunals Supported by SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Supreme Court Jeopardizes Opioid Deal, Rejecting Protections for Sacklers The justices rejected a bankruptcy settlement maneuver that would have protected members of the Sackler family from civil claims related to the opioid epidemic. Listen to this article * 8:40 min Learn more * Share full article * * * 1097 Demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court. They are wearing red and holding up signs, banners and a megaphone. The Supreme Court rejected a provision at the heart of a settlement with Purdue Pharma that would have channeled billions of dollars to help curb the opioid epidemic in exchange for shielding the Sacklers. Credit...Julia Nikhinson for The New York Times Abbie VanSickle By Abbie VanSickle Reporting from Washington June 27, 2024Updated 6:49 p.m. ET The Supreme Court said on Thursday that members of the Sackler family cannot be shielded from liability for civil claims related to the opioid epidemic, jeopardizing a bankruptcy plan that would have offered such protection in exchange for channeling billions of dollars toward addressing the crisis. In a 5-to-4 decision, the justices found that the deal, carefully negotiated over years with states, tribes, local governments and individuals, had broken a basic tenet of bankruptcy law by shielding members of the Sackler family from lawsuits without the consent of those who might sue. The plan for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin, the drug widely considered to have ignited the crisis, was unusual because it offered broad protections that the Sackler family, who controlled the company, had demanded for years even as the Sacklers avoided declaring bankruptcy themselves. "The Sacklers have not filed for bankruptcy and have not placed virtually all their assets on the table for distribution to creditors, yet they seek what essentially amounts to a discharge," Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. While he acknowledged that the decision left the plan in limbo, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the threat of future lawsuits from opioid victims, states, government entities and others might compel the Sacklers "to negotiate consensual releases on terms more favorable to opioid victims." "If past is prologue," Justice Gorsuch wrote, citing the U.S. Trustee Office, which challenged the deal, "there may be a better deal on the horizon." We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Site Index Site Information Navigation * (c) 2024 The New York Times Company * NYTCo * Contact Us * Accessibility * Work with us * Advertise * T Brand Studio * Your Ad Choices * Privacy Policy * Terms of Service * Terms of Sale * Site Map * Canada * International * Help * Subscriptions * Manage Privacy Preferences