The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the Sackler family who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids but also would have provided billions of dollars to combat the opioid epidemic.
After deliberating more than six months, the justices in a 5-4 vote blocked an agreement hammered out with state and local governments and victims.
The Sacklers would have contributed up to $6 billion and given up ownership of the company but retained billions more.
The agreement provided that the company would emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used for treatment and prevention.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said “nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge.”
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
“Opioid victims and other future victims of mass torts will suffer greatly in the wake of today’s unfortunate and destabilizing decision,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The high court had put the settlement on hold last summer, in response to objections from the Biden administration.
.Here are the top political news stories for today.
@HumbleDotterelGreen2yrs2Y
It's insane that Kagan and Sotomayor dissented on this one.
@DunbirdEllieSocialist2yrs2Y
they are focused on the agreement being the only way the victims get paid during their lifetimes. I don't think they are against making the Saklers pay. But note that no prosecutor has yet charged them criminally, which is what should have happened.
Legal principles do not always track with ethical or moral standards or even political ones. Congrats that both of them can separate the two. Too much reporting today conflates these standards leading to confusion among the public.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Join in on more popular conversations.
