In a tight 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court on Thursday nullified a multibillion-dollar opioid settlement involving Purdue Pharma, makers of OxyContin, due to its provision granting the Sackler family lifetime immunity from future opioid-related litigation. The Court’s decision mandates that settlement negotiations begin anew, potentially delaying compensation for over 100,000 people affected by the opioid epidemic.
The ruling hits hard, as during the period from 1999 to 2019, nearly 250,000 Americans died due to prescription opioid overdoses. Meanwhile, the Sackler family siphoned off approximately $11 billion from Purdue Pharma. The family had required immunity as part of the settlement in exchange for returning up to $6 billion to the financially beleaguered company, a contentious condition that was approved by a bankruptcy court but overturned by the Supreme Court.
The justices who formed the majority—Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson—reasoned that the lower courts that approved the Sacklers’ immunity misinterpreted Chapter 11 bankruptcy code. Specifically, they ruled the code does not authorize such relief for nondebtors like the Sacklers, emphasizing that any such provisions should only apply to the debtor, Purdue Pharma.
Conversely, Justices Kavanaugh, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Roberts dissented strongly, with Kavanaugh arguing that the ruling was incorrect and would have devastating consequences for opioid victims and their families. They stated that such immunity deals are longstanding practices aimed at securing just settlements and criticized the majority for undermining this framework.
The dissenting opinion expressed concerns about the widespread harm and instability the ruling might cause, urging congressional intervention to address the issues arising from the decision.