The nation's opioid crisis takes center stage at the Supreme Court on Monday, though the case in question centers mostly on an obscure part of bankruptcy law. The justices will hear arguments on whether members of the billionaire Sackler family, owners of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, should be shielded from civil lawsuits over the flood of addictions. At stake is a roughly $6 billion settlement that would provide money to victims and their families, reports the New York Times. Last year, Purdue Pharma struck a deal with victims, as well as state and local governments, to pay the sum—but one key condition barred people from suing individual members of the Sackler family in the future.
It wasn't families who formally objected to the deal but an arm of the Justice Department that keeps an eye on bankruptcy proceedings. The US Bankruptcy Trustee argued that the Sacklers shouldn't be protected because it was Purdue Pharma—not the family—that filed for bankruptcy, per the AP. The deal was struck during the Trump administration, which backed the settlement, but the Biden administration disagrees. A court ruling against the provision could torpedo the overall settlement, and Axios frames the issue this way: "Should the desire to punish the ex-owners get in the way of paying long-awaited compensation for opioid victims?"
Families are split over the question, and many reluctantly approve of giving the Sacklers a pass in order free up the settlement money. "NO ONE wants to see the Sacklers pay the full price more than me," wrote Cheryl Juaire to the court. "I lost TWO SONS as a result of their actions. But the only thing that will make my personal tragedy worse is to know that others will suffer the way I do every day." A lawyer for another victim sees the settlement as a "special protection for billionaires," per the AP. (More Purdue Pharma stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
