Supreme Court Blocks Sackler Immunity in Purdue Pharma Opioid Deal

The Supreme Court has declined a proposal aimed at protecting the Sackler family in the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding Purdue's role in the opioid crisis.

The plan, which aimed to shield the Sacklers from future opioid-related lawsuits in exchange for contributing billions to opioid abatement, faced strong opposition. Critics argued that it would grant excessive legal immunity to the family, accused of aggressively promoting opioids while downplaying their risks.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, emphasized concerns about fairness and transparency. She highlighted that shielding the Sacklers could undermine accountability for their alleged misconduct. This decision aligns with lower court rulings that rejected the proposed settlement terms.

The Sackler family, known for their philanthropy but also criticized for their role in the opioid crisis, expressed disappointment. They argued that their proposed contribution was substantial and aimed at addressing public health needs urgently. However, opponents believe that accountability for Purdue's actions should extend to those who profited most from its sales.