Supreme Court Overturns Opioid Settlement That Shielded Sacklers From Lawsuits

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a hotly contested deal that shielded members of the billionaire Sackler family from civil lawsuits related to the opioid epidemic.

The decision, in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, clouds the future of a settlement that committed billions of dollars to victims of the opioid epidemic, but it opens up the possibility that the Sacklers, who own Purdue while it remains in bankruptcy limbo, would face a deeper reckoning. And it may spell broader changes for other major settlements that insulate individuals behind acts of corporate wrongdoing.

The justices split along unusual lines. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Samuel Alito. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the dissent, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The decision reopens a deal that emerged from more than five years of legal wrangling that pitted immediate compensation for the effects of the opioid crisis against greater personal consequences for the Sackler family.

In 2019, facing a tidal wave of lawsuits over its role in driving the opioid crisis, Purdue Pharma ― but not its owners, the Sackler family ― filed for bankruptcy protection, placing all litigation on hold. Over the next several years, a deal emerged in a New York bankruptcy court to dissolve Purdue Pharma and remake it into a nonprofit whose proceeds would pay for states and communities across the country to address the opioid epidemic. The Sackler family would also contribute up to $6 billion over several years.

In return, the settlement would end all litigation against Purdue, one of the typical protections of bankruptcy. But