The US Supreme Court rejected the settlement terms of an opioid case, Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, leaving billions still on hold for local governments and a prolonged negotiation. The ruling also rejected the idea that the Sackler family and other culpable owners could be shielded from future civil liability for their role in the opioid crisis.
Billions of dollars from opioid settlements have begun making their way to state and local governments in an effort to help remediate the damage caused by the opioid crisis. Government agencies are a primary mechanism to help community members recover. While this ruling slows down the flow of that money continuing through to local actors, it does leave open the potential for continued damages to be rewarded to suffering communities. While the timeline is unfortunate, any effort to minimize the amount of money going towards remediation will have an adverse impact on the work local governments can do to support communities still reeling from the damage.
From the CNN article:
On a court that often focuses first and foremost on the text of the law, Gorsuch noted that the bankruptcy law didn’t specifically give authority to courts to allow third parties like the Sacklers to avoid future liability. And while he acknowledged that the decision Thursday “may cause Purdue’s current reorganization plan to unravel,” Gorsuch wrote that outcome would considerably increase legal exposure for the Sacklers and may force the family to negotiate better terms.
