The Supreme Court is examining culpability for America’s opioid crisis

Later today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over the legality of a multi-billion-dollar settlement involving the Sackler family and their company, Purdue Pharma, whose highly addictive pain medication OxyContin played a key role in the US opioid epidemic.

Background: Purdue first introduced OxyContin in 1996, and marketed the drug as having a much lower addiction risk compared to other opioid painkillers – despite possessing (and concealing) knowledge of “significant” abuse of OxyContin in the first years after its introduction.

Additionally, the drug was approved by the FDA even though no long-term assessment of its addictive capabilities had been conducted, with the medical review officer who approved OxyContin resigning from the FDA one year later to take a job at Purdue Pharma with substantially higher salary.

Sales of OxyContin quickly grew from $48 million in 1996 to almost $1.1 billion in 2000, but the high availability of the drug also correlated with increased addiction. By 2004, OxyContin had become a leading drug of abuse in the US, and a series of lawsuits against Purdue Pharma soon followed.

• In 2007, Purdue pleaded guilty to a felony count of misbranding OxyContin by lying about how addictive it was, and paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against a pharma firm ($634.5 million). The company continued to market and sell opioids as late as 2019, when it filed for bankruptcy.

Zoom out: Between 1999 and 2021, more than 634,000 Americans died from an overdose involving any opioid, including prescription and illicit opioids, per the most recent federal data.

That brings us to the topic of today’s SCOTUS trial. In 2020, Purdue reached an ~$8.3 billion settlement with dozens of states, local governments, Native American tribes, and victims over the company’s role in America’s opioid crisis, with the plan approved by 95% of victims.

• The Sackler family agreed to contribute $6 billion toward efforts to fight the opioid crisis, as well as provide compensation to victims (each of whom are eligible to receive $3,500–$48,000).
• In return, the Sacklers received a release shielding them from any and all future civil lawsuits stemming from the opioid crisis – a point which some states, Canadian municipalities, and victims, along with the DOJ, have sued to stop in a case before the Supreme Court today.

The group of plaintiffs suing to stop the plan claims its shield for the Sacklers is illegal, since even victims who voted to refuse the deal can’t pursue claims against the family.

On the flip side, the Sacklers and many victims argue the plan provides typical bankruptcy protections, and represents the only viable mechanism for granting victims financial aid.

👀 Looking ahead… The Supreme Court’s decision is expected before next summer.

📊 Flash poll: Do you agree with the legal settlement allowing the Sackler family to pay $6 billion for protection from any future civil lawsuits regarding the opioid crisis?

• Yes
• No
• Unsure/other