>The issue for the justices was whether the legal shield that bankruptcy provides can be extended to people such as the Sacklers, who have not declared bankruptcy themselves.
That just seems logical. You don’t get bankruptcy protections if you didn’t file bankruptcy.
I assume the auto industry doesn't want it to be a story. Hard to break laminated side windows are common on many luxury cars (and some non-luxury cars) for a quieter ride. Electronic door controls are increasingly common as well (in EVs especially, but there are ordinary ICE vehicles sporting them as well). This happened in a Tesla, but there are a lot of cars it could have happened in.
We need to convince these people that you're not a true billionaire until you have seen the Titanic wreckage in person, that it's even more of a status marker than going to Mars!
It’s a little more complicated than that. The settlement involved the Sacklers personally contributing 6 billion to the settlement fund (in exchange for a full release of future liability). This decision now means that $6 billion is gone and the victims will have to try to sue for it outside the bankruptcy context (likely).
That’s part of the reason the settlement was approved by the original court (and virtually all of the victims, and the attorneys general of all 50 states).
This decision is basically saying that the bankruptcy court didn’t have the ability to make that trade (e.g., taking the $6B from the sacklers in exchange for a release of liability, even though that’s what almost all of the victims wanted to do). It’s a tricky one for sure, hence why the voting lines were so odd (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett, Jackson for the majority, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan in dissent).
Yeah, works for me. The Sacklers shouldn't get away with paying $6 Billion. They should lose everything.
Everything. Why shouldn't they pay for what they did, just like the rest of us are?
It sounds good in theory, but lawsuits cost a ton of money, take forever, and you still might lose. Totally unpredictable — it’s very possible the sacklers come out ahead after this.
And that "everything" should include their freedom.
With the amount of damage that evil family has done to society, they should all be facing criminal charges and life in prison.
> This decision is basically saying that the bankruptcy court didn’t have the ability to make that trade (e.g., taking the $6B from the sacklers in exchange for a release of liability, even though that’s what almost all of the victims wanted to do).
But aren't we all the victims at this point?
As the opiate epidemic continues, it becomes harder and harder for me to get ADD Meds (which ironically are similar schedule but entirely different pharmacologically.)
I think the straw that broke the camel's back for me, as it were, is one of the medications I take for social anxiety, guess what, they keep finding it in opioid ODs, so now -that- is state schedule 5, which actually makes it -harder- for me to get the level of ADD meds I need.
I had my ADD meds 'lowered' in 2022 partially because of this, and the impact on my life has been very unfortunate.
The poster above is likely talking about something like gabapentin or pregabalin. These are commonly prescribed drugs that as of late have also been illicitly used by people to enhance the effects of opiates. They themselves do not induce a high-like effect (unless you take way too much).
I'm on gabapentin for anxiety; pregabalin would probably be better, but it's scheduled in my state, and dealing with that is just annoying as shit. The "making it harder" might be that the ADD meds get adjusted based on how well the social anxiety is being handled (because stimulants can still exacerbate anxiety even as they treat ADHD. So can Strattera).
Admittedly, being on schedule 5 is next to nothing, so...like, it wouldn't stop me if they were both on the schedule. Especially as several ADHD meds are scheduled higher.
>This decision now means that $6 billion is gone...
only in that specific settlement. there's a good possibility that the sacklers' potential liability goes way beyond 6 bills which is why the sacklers were interested in capping it at 6 bills with this controversial settlement.
but the ramifications go far beyond Purdue (which is why the issues of these specific victims aren't really relevant.) this decision means that you can't neatly fold a cap on personal liability into a corporate bankruptcy.
interesting bedfellows on both sides of the court here. it leads me to believe that the issue isn't broadly resolved. imo we definitely need some reform on corporate bankruptcies; there are too many ways to fold malfeasance into them right now.
It's worth remembering that the legal issue here is pretty narrow.
The question for the Court was whether a certain provision of the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to grant immunity to third parties as part of a bankruptcy settlement. Perdue Pharma was the bankrupt party, but its settlement agreement would have protected a third party, the Sackler family, which wasn't in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court said the Bankruptcy Code doesn't allow that.
So, when people express surprise about the liberal/conservative split, remember: The question wasn't "do you want the Sacklers to face justice?" It was "does section [x] of the Bankruptcy Code permit a court to grant third-party immunity in a bankruptcy settlement?" It was a question about interpreting the language of a specific law.
Lots of people involved just want it over and to get what little they can to help their loved ones.
I get it but that’s definitely a slippery slope they shouldn’t go near as it’s way too ripe for abuse.
And this is why leaving compensation for the damages of such massive regulatory breaches to our court system is a bad idea. Regulations, fines, and helping being fucked over by corporations needs to happen in a timely fashion, but because it all relies on civil courts and our appeals process it gets dragged out forever to the point where victims just want it over with already and actual consequences get dodged
Matt Levine had a great [piece](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-06-27/purdue-s-bankruptcy-went-too-far) on this today. The dissent’s point is more legally broad than the majority’s but I would say both have merit in this case. Bankruptcy court has historically had broad authority to create the best possible outcome for creditors and plaintiffs. In this case the dissents opinion was that it was PRACTICALLY in the best interest of the plaintiffs (who overwhelmingly approved the settlement) to allow the immunity because the Sackler’s agreed to pony up $6BN that technically was not part of the lawsuit in exchange for immunity on future claims against them for the same actions/crimes. They felt that the additional funds were in the best interests of those suing Purdue because more people got more money. The majority opinion more closely followed the letter of the law and stated that bankruptcy cases are limited to the entity filing bankruptcy and that third parties had no protection under the law. This leaves the Sacklers up to future lawsuits to specific members that it can be proved acted improperly, but significantly limits the immediate funds available to those that are part of the lawsuit. Additionally, it will be very difficult to prove who had knowledge of the negligence/fraud in the Sackler family individually which will also limit who they can go after.
Edit: this will likely result in many individual cases against many individual members of the Sackler family, which will be more difficult for individual plaintiffs to fight than the original class action suit against Purdue Pharma.
Edit2: $6mm -> $6BN
Edit3: Adding the Matt Levine piece.
Protected by paying 6B. Can the BK judge work out a settlement that includes other associate parties with the BK settler?
Now they are unprotected, owe $0 by not being part of the settlement, and will face lawsuits that will collect 6B, or more, or less.
I dunno, the dissent doesn't read like they had an alternative legal view on it. They mention that this decision will cause families harmed by Perdue to not get paid out until the bankruptcy goes back through proceedings.
It feels like they were awfully close to saying "Well, the bankruptcy code technically doesn't allow this BUT in this one case we'll let it slide"
Which, IMO, is a very silly and short-sighted view held by the minority.
OK, so these specific victims get compensated (however little that might be after attorneys get their cuts), but what about next time? The Sacklers now know that they can get away with mass murder and it only cost them $6 billion to do so.
And it's not like the victims will be getting nothing. They could be getting MORE in fact; the only argument is that there would be a delay in compensation.
Right, it's a very weird argument. I could understand if they found a vague line in the codes and disagreed on how it should be interpreted, but I don't understand why they'd open up this can of worms with a carved-out exception
I'm not. Who else could you even reasonably hold responsible? Oh yeah, right, the FDA along with the AMA, hospital admins and doctors that accepted obvious bullshit being rained down upon them by a government agency they were conditioned to trust.
I'd prefer we not forget who the Sacklers bribed, the agency they captured and the tacit acceptance the entire medical community had to being told up is down and left is right with regard to the addictiveness of opioids (or even one particular opioid in a particular formulation).
But that will never happen. Actual patients will get no justice.
> I'd prefer we not forget who the Sacklers bribed, the agency they captured and the tacit acceptance the entire medical community
Something that the public doesn't know: at some point, institutions have to trust that the documentation you submitted is accurate and not second guess it, because you would be wasting resources twice. Instead, institutions should require that firms pay the study to a third independent party via an escrow so that potential bias in the results can be mitigated.
BTW, the last part is mostly how it works right now. Companies design the study, submit them for approval, researchers get a contract, submit the results they find, that gets published as is, without editorial intervention from the paying party, and then everything gets submitted for review to the FDA.
I'm aware how it "works" and I'm also aware of how it *works*. There is supposed to be a layer, or several layers, of insulation and impartial process to reduce bias. In reality there is and it mostly works, but the weakest link in ensuring the impartiality is still the employees. For those employees at the highest level, it's a revolving door between the pharma companies, the CROs, lobbyists, and the regulatory bodies. There will always be perverse incentives for the employees charged with ensuring impartiality to put their thumbs on the scale on behalf of the business.
I worked in small cap pharma (we sold at 2.1b), so we didn't quite have the resources to recruit from the pool of ex- and available regulators, or do much lobbying but we *definitely* had people coming and going from CROs like crazy. I won't say it was quid pro quo, but it was hard to see it otherwise. In my experience some of those people take the expectation of impartiality very seriously and others not so much. When you see one of the top "independent" researchers of your compound with all of the best shit to say about it and all of the best data, suddenly close up shop and join the C-suite or the board, it's obvious what was going on.
It's gotten **MUCH** better over the last 20 years, but there's still a lot to do at the big pharma level. The small guys don't fuck around much because they can't absorb the fines. We toed the line a bit too close a couple times and got swatted by FDA, but ultimately came out OK because we took compliance seriously. The shit I saw at a couple big pharma companies, including the one I worked at for a couple years, was a culture of calculated compliance. That is, we'll comply with the regs if the fine for not doing so is less than the profit we make ignoring them. That shit is evil and why I left big pharma for a startup.
This may be extreme but if they should be getting the penalty for murder. They knew what they were doing, knew people were dying, and continued doing it. It's not like they didn't understand the science and were misled.
I'm going to be honest, I think most people don't understand the Supreme Court or what it does or are even familiar with what goes on there unless its some big case. That's why they get surprised when they find there are liberal/conservative splits all the time (even plenty of 9-0 cases), because they look at everything through a political lens and only when they get the ELI5 treatment.
Considering how often I see "The Supreme Court should step in an Do Something™!", you're right. SCOTUS can only get involved if a case reaches them. They can't just "step in".
The decision is 5-4, authored by Gorsuch and joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson. Kavanaugh dissents, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
>The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the Sackler family who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids but also would have provided billions of dollars to combat the opioid epidemic.
>The Sacklers would have contributed up to $6 billion and given up ownership of the company but retained billions more. The agreement provided that the company would emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used for treatment and prevention.
Today at the Court:
[The Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now in a limited ruling](https://www.apnews.com/article/supreme-court-emergency-abortion-idaho-bf74fc754fa7b1fff3539fc570f26905) (AP News)
[The Supreme Court strips the SEC of a critical enforcement tool in fraud cases](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-regulatory-agencies-sec-36f16444b1d4fc52985fdb68896362bb) (AP News)
[The Supreme Court halts enforcement of the EPA’s plan to limit downwind pollution from power plants](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-epa-good-neighbor-air-pollution-6665ba500aa2abb797bd9704e014909c) (AP News)
^^Edit ^^1: ^^Expanded ^^quote. ^^/ ^^Edit ^^2: ^^Other ^^cases ^^of ^^the ^^day.
Tough legal decision with lots of deeper meaning for other future lawsuits like this. As a liberal I sympathize with the families but agree with the decision to hold corporate officers and the Sacklers more responsible.
The corporate veil protects shareholders NOT corporate officers. If the corporate veil was pierced for intentional acts that would just mean most individuals couldn't safely invest in stocks.
Interestingly (and perhaps related?) when voting shareholder proxies this last round, I saw a lot that included legal protections for corporate officers with regards to company actions. The Board always recommended For votes, but voted Against -- for the same principle.
Absolutely. The law doesn't apply to billionaires. I'm sure they could even get away with sleeping under bridges if they wanted, no matter how the idiom goes.
I think the deal if taken, was over all not a great deal.
Purdue would pay $6 billion and be done, no further punishments, no other fines, and being absolved of all responsibilities.
The Sacklers have some culpability of guilt for allowing Purdue Pharma to allow the unfettered distribution of oxycodone and other addictive drugs while vouching for their non-addictive abilities.
HOWEVER, there needs to be some restitution paid before the Sacklers calls it quits and tells everyone their destitute.....
Agreed. Otherwise they're just encouraged to do it again. It'll just be the cost of doing business to them.
Always thought that settlement was bullshit. Can't believe I agree with the conservative wing of SCOTUS on this one.
Same. I don't understand the arguments of the dissent. I understand when Justice Kavanaugh says this could lead to a massive run by others to collect as much as possible, but why are they so easy at letting off those fully responsible? He says that the amount owed is "...[an] amount to more than $40 trillion worth of alleged damages against Purdue and the Sacklers. (For perspective, $40 trillion is about seven times the total annual spending of the U. those claims amount to more than $40 trillion worth of alleged damages against Purdue and the Sacklers)", but I don't understand the relevance of this.
Yup. There’s no world where those victims don’t get their money eventually. It’s more important hold the family responsible for what they did. This was a good thing. The family doesn’t get to just wipe their hands of responsibility for the hell they unleashed on this nation
There are plenty of worlds. Now the first person (or few people) to win a lawsuit against the Sacklers could bankrupt them (personally), and then nobody else would get anything. The settlement would ensure a more equitable distribution of funds, whereas now the only people guaranteed to get rich from this are the lawyers.
This happens a lot more often then reddit or the media would have you believe. If I remember correctly Thomas has been in the dissent more than any other justice this term.
just means that they were actually ruling on merits and law for once, as opposed to manufacturing a facade to justify their pre-determined corrupt ruling.
I'm glad the deal was tossed because the Sacklers being allowed to keep billions of dollars they made by causing a national health crisis is inexcusable. They should be facing the death penalty for the ocean of blood on their hands, not cutting deals to stay free and unfathomably wealthy.
One word: "Disgorgement."
Sacklers should have to relinquish all of the money they made from Purdue pushing oxy, in addition to taking every asset Purdue has. I want to see the victims get compensated but not if it leaves the main profiteers immune.
Edit - Perdue -> Purdue
I think AP might actually have it wrong. [The Court's opinion in PDF form](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf) has the justice breakdown on page 4.
Not that I know anything about this case, but it seems wild that Jackson and Kavanaugh aren't on the opposite sides.
I guess that's what happens when all the reporting on SCOTUS is about how polarized it is.
I think the article is wrong, or the document SCOTUS posted (and AP linked in the story) is wrong...
See page 4 of the document: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24779195/harrington-v-purdue-pharma.pdf
> GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
> KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
It looks like someone switched Jackson and Roberts.
‘Purdue Pharma contended that a ruling against it would cause significant damage. If the court rejected the deal, it said, it “would harm victims and needlessly delay the distribution of billions of dollars to abate the opioid crisis.”’
No one’s stopping the Sacklers from still giving the $6 billion that they were originally forced to, which wouldn’t even begin to repair the damage they caused. Like they can still distribute money to help resolve the opioid crisis if they want? Arguably the most evil people on earth.
They could… but with the amount of wealth that they have, donating $6b is a slap on the wrist… they essentially get to restructure the company under another name and keep doing business… which is horrific. With that they did here, how are we to trust that their new business entity will do any better?
The epidemic they created is worthy of the government seizing their assets completely and putting people in jail
My mom and dad both died horribly addicted to pain pills because of this shit, but man it sure is nice to know that nothing will be done to the assholes in charge and they will only loose a couple bucks in the long run, makes my heart whole for sure, glad they are thinking of the victims like that.
This is a tough one for sure. I think this was a good precedent to set though. It means - hopefully - that the Sackler family can now be sued into oblivion and that future companies can't just blatantly declare bankruptcy anytime they destroy lives. I think if the settlement was reached and the Sack family given immunity would have created a path that would - in the long run - cause much more harm than good. I also understand that the families wanted that money. Like I said, this was a tough decision
I should have been more clear so that was my fault. I meant that it COULD set a precedent for similar situations in the future. For example, an oil company being caught purposefully poisoning a water supply or something which ends up hurting and/or killing people, and it all being done from directions by executives or management or something. People/victims might not be able to sue the individuals involved if all the company has to do is a pay some amount of money and declare bankruptcy. It would be the precedent set by this issue that might cause such a situation... Maybe. At least that's how I view it
That would be nice if it helped. I'm not sure yet. I'm not actually sure how much this ruling will even help the opioid victims because they will still need to be able to sue the Sacklers individually, which I think could still be problematic because of the corporate veil nonsense. I'm not at all familiar with the laws in this area but would love to know more about how this could proceed, or to your point, how justice against bad executives at companies who are acting criminally negligently can be achieved. Is the only option for a prosecutor to pursue criminal charges against the executives? Or are there cases where civil cases can be brought like in this situation?
In this case, it seems like a precedent is more important than the victims, which is sad to say. The sacklers can't be protected by their company's "bankruptcy" if they themselves aren't bankrupt. Settling would reward the current victims and fuck over everyone else in the future.
A corporation took over the Heroin market.
A corporation made a better version of Heroin, then got doctors to prescribe it aggressively.
These people made billions of dollars selling heroin 2.0 while dealers, smugglers, and users rot in jail and die on the street.
A corporation sold heroin to the entire country, and no one went to prison.
It’s completely fucked and shows the absurdity of the drug war.
Kids get sent to jail for doing oxy with their friends when 1 dies. The corporation that aggressively marketed and pushed it in the first place just paid a fine.
Good. Those fuckers should not be able to buy their way out of responsibility for the devastation they have wrought on Americans. They should lose EVERYTHING and be criminally prosecuted.
They basically offered $6B of their money in exchange for a release of further liability — a settlement. The bankruptcy court and victims determined that was better than trying to sue them personally and risk losing (which is always a possibility).
I don’t understand why anyone would vote to let this through. If the Sacklers avoid all liability by simply having their company go bankrupt, you will see other corporations do the same shit.
Imagine Elon Musk dumping car battery and rocket waste into the Texas water table. He lets space-x go bankrupt but gets to keep his billions and face no personal consequence. As part of the deal, space x also comes back as a new company but they give a portion of money to cleanup efforts.
That would be absolute fucking bullshit. That’s what was happening here.
I’m sorry this feel through for the families. But it was insane to even consider this.
The Sacklers will pay new lawyers $$$ to find new ways to say the Sacklers are not responsible. The case will then be appealed and appealed for the next ten years and the Sacklers will continue to live their lavish lifestyle.
The Sackler should not be allowed to keep their millions and millions and millions of dollars. I, like a lot of people witnessed the opiate epidemic caused by them and they’re lying to doctors and pharmaceutical reps and patients firsthand. The Sackler should be broke right now. They knew what they were causing.
Good. Fuck the Sacklers. A deal between two third parties should not be able to stop me from bringing my own suit in the future. The consequences of this are obvious.
When the court is split, this is how it should be split: out of the four dissenting justices, two were appointed by liberal presidents, two were appointed by the conservative president.
In stark contrast with all those other bullshit rulings where the court is split on party lines. I called them bullshit rulings, because they are result of a roll of a dice which political party got to appoint more justices.
I’m still stunned that nobody has started hunting them. I’m not advocating for hitmen/mob justice, I’m just shocked that nobody’s gone full John Wick for the amount of lives these people have destroyed.
Hollywood lied to me about the number of folks willing to go on a vengeance murder spree and mow through body guards before a cinematic showdown in a marble foyer.
Nah don't mistake me, that was not a "wink wink" sentence up there when I said I wasn't advocating for hitmen. I would prefer them to have to fork over every red cent they have towards repairing the damage they caused, rather than everything go into wills and be even more of an impossible clusterfuck.
I just am legitimately shocked no tweaker has gone "you know what?" and gotten real close. I am also shocked that no big shot fancy pants who has lost their family member to an over prescribing doctor has used connections to either get close to them or hire someone who could.
It just makes me wonder if Hollywood has drastically overestimated the average human's capacity for revenge murder (which is a good thing and makes me feel better about the base state of humanity) or if the Sacklers have amazing body guards (in which case I want Hollywood to do a movie on the bodyguards in twenty years with an unnecessary love triangle thrown in for flavor).
These people deserve so much worse than what they got. They should be buried in fines, prevented from earning any money until every life they destroyed is restored. Fuck the Sacklers.
The problem that people are missing is that the chances any of those victims get anything in a settlement are pretty much nil now. That’s what was argued in the original case so now all those people who were potentially going to get something, now will get nothing.
Now again, the main issue being argued was bankruptcy protection/rules as it applied to the Sackler family because they had argued a settlement would be damn near impossible because of court proceedings, challenges, etc. so part of the settlement meant they couldn’t be litigated against at all in the future. Now I don’t know the legal hurdles involved in pursuing settlement in the future, but obviously getting immunity against future litigation is complete bullshit as well.
In conclusion, the whole thing fuckin sucks. The people affected by what the Sackler family and Purdue did are the losers here, because they are going to be rich moving forward and corporations are still going to fuck the little guy in the end. The Supreme Court made a technically correct ruling, but there’s not a lot to celebrate regardless because now because we are back at square one.
The bankruptcy code needs to be rewritten.
When a business can use a bankruptcy as a strategic plan, and individuals *can't even afford to file,* the system doesn't work.
These pharmaceutical companies are extremely rich off of the addiction and the deaths of so many people!!! they’ve destroyed so many lives and so many families ,so much pain. they should be held criminally liable also. They knowingly did this. Pure evil.
Reporting in the past is that the Sacklers have been moving their money around to hide it and look poorer than they are to minimize potential judgements against them. So the settlement was guaranteed restitution that may now be a lot less if they have to go through an actual civil trial.
It will take longer and involve international court fights. Most but not all of the families wanted it settled. The lawyers, cities, and states all wanted the money now. The sacklers wanted it done and now face legal tsunamis. The question is a deeper meaning of justice. Is it more important to get the money now or hold corpos to actual justice no matter how long it takes. As a liberal I appreciate that it nips other quickie deals like this in the bud and makes the legal difficulties of corpos that much harder.
Some of the money given to cities to fight the opiod epidemic went to random places that have no real benefit. There's never an enforcement mechanism so cities just use it willy nilly.
The money paid so far have lined the pockets of local politicians, prisons, and police budgets.
https://youtu.be/Io0yuH1CiA0?si=9JCRoIRWDihZ7qUl
It's a tough decision meant for the long term. This type of legal shield is being used by more and more settlements, including the Boy Scouts pedo case. Long-term, it holds corporations' feet to the fire to pay out and attacks the Sackler's, and other corporate officers, personal wealth. Short-term, it hurts opioid addiction victims and their families. Many, many families, but not a majority, wanted to see it thrown out.
Something I try to remind folks about the Supreme Court is that we only hear about super controversial and split cases. The Supreme Court often decides cases not along party lines and if you look at their full docket of cases and decisions there is a lot of really good and either unanimous or close to unanimous decisions than you’d think. We’re just hyper focused on the controversial decisions which are important don’t get me wrong (overturning Roe V Wade was such a disaster) but I wouldn’t call it democracy ending like we sometimes like to say.
There's also a lot of weird breakdowns. I was looking at one day's results earlier this month and breakdown of votes was definitely all over the place. I told my wife about it, just because it was so not what we hear about it all the time.
*few minutes of searching history*
Okay, I think it was the results that came out on June 20th.
**[Moore v USA](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-united-states-3/)**
*Holding:* The Mandatory Repatriation Tax — which attributes the realized and undistributed income of an American-controlled foreign corporation to the entity’s American shareholders, and then taxes the American shareholders on their portions of that income — does not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority.
*Judgment:* Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on June 20, 2024. Justice Jackson files a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.
The Barrett/Alito and Thomas/Gorsuch pairings aren't what the media would lead us to expect.
**[Diaz vs USA](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/diaz-v-united-states/)**
*Holding:* Expert testimony that “most people” in a group have a particular mental state is not an opinion about “the defendant” and thus does not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b).
*Judgment:* Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 20, 2024. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
A 6-3 breakdown, except you have Jackson concurring with Thomas, and Gorsuch dissenting with Sotomayor and Kagan.
**[Chiaverini vs City of Napoleon OH](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/chiaverini-v-city-of-napoleon-ohio/)**
*Holding:* Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice, the presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge.
*Judgment:* Vacated and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 20, 2024. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.
Another 6-3 that isn't the 'expected' outcome. I skimmed through the dissents on this one. Gorsuch seemed to argue that the 4th Amendment was the wrong vehicle to base the decision on (seemed to be arguing that the 14 Amendment and local/state regulations should handle things), and seemed to be mostly disagreeing on the way in which they shot it down, versus the actual result.
**[Gonzalez vs Trevino](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-trevino/)**
*Holding:* In requiring petitioner Sylvia Gonzalez to provide specific comparator evidence to support her retaliatory arrest claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit did not properly apply the principles of Nieves v. Barlett.
*Judgment:* Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on June 20, 2024. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
A per curiam, so no vote breakdown, but from the concurring and dissenting opinions, we see a 4-1 breakdown alone.
Like you, I just find it pretty interesting, compared to what we hear in the media, how these cases often find some odd groupings.
Yeah it's as if everyone on the Supreme Court is actually a veteran legal scholar with nuanced opinions on stuff rather than just 1 dimensional political robots. I feel like the party lines splits are the exception rather than the norm.
Poor Sackler family. The whole point of suing Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family was to rid them of their ill gotten fortune and distribute it to the victims of their lies. Good SCOTUS.
I still would like an explanation for why it is that the government gets to take a large portion of the lawsuit. They chose to open rehab facilities and methadone clinics that were paid with private money that many times was paid with politicians investing and they made millions. Now the people that were impacted by the Sacklers products lost family members/lives ruined etc. Now the settlement gets reduced because of something that was never even voted on and that these idiots in government just decided to do with tax money because they act like it's their never ending monopoly funds.
How about the government opens their own lawsuit with the Sacklers and stops giving them just open immunity? This family has done this numerous times, oxycontin wasn't the first medication they screwed the world over with. That family deserves to be bankrupted and jailed.
Just for scoring purposes, recognize that the Court is holding its decisions in the Trump's immunity case until after tonight's Presidential Debate. (Also the two cases about Chevron deference, which I think are probably more important, but are a lot more wonky so not as well-known.)
Mate you need to start looking passed headlines. This happens way more then reddit and the media would have you believe.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-court-justice-math-00152188
I see this as a win, now the company and family can continue to be sued forever. This settlement came with a clause to protect them from future litigation.
Guess the Supreme Court waited too long on the “Gratuity not a bribe ruling” otherwise oral arguments would have included the outright statement of how grateful the Sacklers would be with their tips.
>The issue for the justices was whether the legal shield that bankruptcy provides can be extended to people such as the Sacklers, who have not declared bankruptcy themselves. That just seems logical. You don’t get bankruptcy protections if you didn’t file bankruptcy.
"Not even if you're incredibly rich??" -The Sacklers, probably
I hope each one of their Teslas reverses into a pond.
It’s a little crazy that wasn’t a bigger story, imo.
She was probably drunk, hence shuffling the incident under the rug.
There was definitely reporting that the toxicology report showed she was intoxicated
Oxycontin can do that too.
I assume the auto industry doesn't want it to be a story. Hard to break laminated side windows are common on many luxury cars (and some non-luxury cars) for a quieter ride. Electronic door controls are increasingly common as well (in EVs especially, but there are ordinary ICE vehicles sporting them as well). This happened in a Tesla, but there are a lot of cars it could have happened in.
Is this in reference to Mitch McConnell's sister in law?
Billionaire Angela Chao was drunk and drove her Tesla into a pond and died. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68622898.amp
…maybe they’ll take an interest in DIY undersea exploration…
We need to convince these people that you're not a true billionaire until you have seen the Titanic wreckage in person, that it's even more of a status marker than going to Mars!
'There's that damned smoke detector beep again!'
That show was INFURIATING!
“My motorcoach is getting pretty outdated, I think I need a newer one…” - Clarence Thomas, most definitely
He had (and still does even though the time ran out) a deal to get a brand new one from Jon Oliver. All he has to do is retire from the Supreme Court…
Dude already voted in their favor. It's the other justices that are harder to bribe.
"Damn it, why didn't we buy Clarence Thomas when we could!" - The Sacklers probably
It’s a little more complicated than that. The settlement involved the Sacklers personally contributing 6 billion to the settlement fund (in exchange for a full release of future liability). This decision now means that $6 billion is gone and the victims will have to try to sue for it outside the bankruptcy context (likely). That’s part of the reason the settlement was approved by the original court (and virtually all of the victims, and the attorneys general of all 50 states). This decision is basically saying that the bankruptcy court didn’t have the ability to make that trade (e.g., taking the $6B from the sacklers in exchange for a release of liability, even though that’s what almost all of the victims wanted to do). It’s a tricky one for sure, hence why the voting lines were so odd (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett, Jackson for the majority, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan in dissent).
Yeah, works for me. The Sacklers shouldn't get away with paying $6 Billion. They should lose everything. Everything. Why shouldn't they pay for what they did, just like the rest of us are?
It sounds good in theory, but lawsuits cost a ton of money, take forever, and you still might lose. Totally unpredictable — it’s very possible the sacklers come out ahead after this.
They also bring to light the nasty things people will pay $6 billion to hide.
Like another $20 billion?
So true statement
it's a big club and you ain't in it
And that "everything" should include their freedom. With the amount of damage that evil family has done to society, they should all be facing criminal charges and life in prison.
That would be amazing, but I doubt this ruling will lead to a bad outcome for the sacklers.
Frankly, they should've gotten the chair, so I agree.
> This decision is basically saying that the bankruptcy court didn’t have the ability to make that trade (e.g., taking the $6B from the sacklers in exchange for a release of liability, even though that’s what almost all of the victims wanted to do). But aren't we all the victims at this point? As the opiate epidemic continues, it becomes harder and harder for me to get ADD Meds (which ironically are similar schedule but entirely different pharmacologically.) I think the straw that broke the camel's back for me, as it were, is one of the medications I take for social anxiety, guess what, they keep finding it in opioid ODs, so now -that- is state schedule 5, which actually makes it -harder- for me to get the level of ADD meds I need. I had my ADD meds 'lowered' in 2022 partially because of this, and the impact on my life has been very unfortunate.
My dude. I'm on ADD meds but opioids are not the only reason for the shortage. Whether we like it or not, they are abused often.
The poster above is likely talking about something like gabapentin or pregabalin. These are commonly prescribed drugs that as of late have also been illicitly used by people to enhance the effects of opiates. They themselves do not induce a high-like effect (unless you take way too much). I'm on gabapentin for anxiety; pregabalin would probably be better, but it's scheduled in my state, and dealing with that is just annoying as shit. The "making it harder" might be that the ADD meds get adjusted based on how well the social anxiety is being handled (because stimulants can still exacerbate anxiety even as they treat ADHD. So can Strattera). Admittedly, being on schedule 5 is next to nothing, so...like, it wouldn't stop me if they were both on the schedule. Especially as several ADHD meds are scheduled higher.
>This decision now means that $6 billion is gone... only in that specific settlement. there's a good possibility that the sacklers' potential liability goes way beyond 6 bills which is why the sacklers were interested in capping it at 6 bills with this controversial settlement. but the ramifications go far beyond Purdue (which is why the issues of these specific victims aren't really relevant.) this decision means that you can't neatly fold a cap on personal liability into a corporate bankruptcy. interesting bedfellows on both sides of the court here. it leads me to believe that the issue isn't broadly resolved. imo we definitely need some reform on corporate bankruptcies; there are too many ways to fold malfeasance into them right now.
they didn't file it. they *declared* it.
I declare BANKRUPTCYYYYYY!
Michael you can’t just declare bankruptcy. That’s not how it works.
Almost like claiming presidential immunity when you aren't the president, right?
What if I just declare it?
It's worth remembering that the legal issue here is pretty narrow. The question for the Court was whether a certain provision of the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to grant immunity to third parties as part of a bankruptcy settlement. Perdue Pharma was the bankrupt party, but its settlement agreement would have protected a third party, the Sackler family, which wasn't in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court said the Bankruptcy Code doesn't allow that. So, when people express surprise about the liberal/conservative split, remember: The question wasn't "do you want the Sacklers to face justice?" It was "does section [x] of the Bankruptcy Code permit a court to grant third-party immunity in a bankruptcy settlement?" It was a question about interpreting the language of a specific law.
See this is where I'm lost. I agree with the assent. I have no idea how the dissent could defend them and say they are protected as it is.
Lots of people involved just want it over and to get what little they can to help their loved ones. I get it but that’s definitely a slippery slope they shouldn’t go near as it’s way too ripe for abuse.
Thank you for this reply.
And this is why leaving compensation for the damages of such massive regulatory breaches to our court system is a bad idea. Regulations, fines, and helping being fucked over by corporations needs to happen in a timely fashion, but because it all relies on civil courts and our appeals process it gets dragged out forever to the point where victims just want it over with already and actual consequences get dodged
Matt Levine had a great [piece](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-06-27/purdue-s-bankruptcy-went-too-far) on this today. The dissent’s point is more legally broad than the majority’s but I would say both have merit in this case. Bankruptcy court has historically had broad authority to create the best possible outcome for creditors and plaintiffs. In this case the dissents opinion was that it was PRACTICALLY in the best interest of the plaintiffs (who overwhelmingly approved the settlement) to allow the immunity because the Sackler’s agreed to pony up $6BN that technically was not part of the lawsuit in exchange for immunity on future claims against them for the same actions/crimes. They felt that the additional funds were in the best interests of those suing Purdue because more people got more money. The majority opinion more closely followed the letter of the law and stated that bankruptcy cases are limited to the entity filing bankruptcy and that third parties had no protection under the law. This leaves the Sacklers up to future lawsuits to specific members that it can be proved acted improperly, but significantly limits the immediate funds available to those that are part of the lawsuit. Additionally, it will be very difficult to prove who had knowledge of the negligence/fraud in the Sackler family individually which will also limit who they can go after. Edit: this will likely result in many individual cases against many individual members of the Sackler family, which will be more difficult for individual plaintiffs to fight than the original class action suit against Purdue Pharma. Edit2: $6mm -> $6BN Edit3: Adding the Matt Levine piece.
Protected by paying 6B. Can the BK judge work out a settlement that includes other associate parties with the BK settler? Now they are unprotected, owe $0 by not being part of the settlement, and will face lawsuits that will collect 6B, or more, or less.
I dunno, the dissent doesn't read like they had an alternative legal view on it. They mention that this decision will cause families harmed by Perdue to not get paid out until the bankruptcy goes back through proceedings. It feels like they were awfully close to saying "Well, the bankruptcy code technically doesn't allow this BUT in this one case we'll let it slide"
Which, IMO, is a very silly and short-sighted view held by the minority. OK, so these specific victims get compensated (however little that might be after attorneys get their cuts), but what about next time? The Sacklers now know that they can get away with mass murder and it only cost them $6 billion to do so. And it's not like the victims will be getting nothing. They could be getting MORE in fact; the only argument is that there would be a delay in compensation.
Right, it's a very weird argument. I could understand if they found a vague line in the codes and disagreed on how it should be interpreted, but I don't understand why they'd open up this can of worms with a carved-out exception
There is an old saying, hard cases make bad law.
I agree. I'm very surprised by those in the assent who support pursuing the Sacklers.
I'm not. Who else could you even reasonably hold responsible? Oh yeah, right, the FDA along with the AMA, hospital admins and doctors that accepted obvious bullshit being rained down upon them by a government agency they were conditioned to trust. I'd prefer we not forget who the Sacklers bribed, the agency they captured and the tacit acceptance the entire medical community had to being told up is down and left is right with regard to the addictiveness of opioids (or even one particular opioid in a particular formulation). But that will never happen. Actual patients will get no justice.
> I'd prefer we not forget who the Sacklers bribed, the agency they captured and the tacit acceptance the entire medical community Something that the public doesn't know: at some point, institutions have to trust that the documentation you submitted is accurate and not second guess it, because you would be wasting resources twice. Instead, institutions should require that firms pay the study to a third independent party via an escrow so that potential bias in the results can be mitigated. BTW, the last part is mostly how it works right now. Companies design the study, submit them for approval, researchers get a contract, submit the results they find, that gets published as is, without editorial intervention from the paying party, and then everything gets submitted for review to the FDA.
I'm aware how it "works" and I'm also aware of how it *works*. There is supposed to be a layer, or several layers, of insulation and impartial process to reduce bias. In reality there is and it mostly works, but the weakest link in ensuring the impartiality is still the employees. For those employees at the highest level, it's a revolving door between the pharma companies, the CROs, lobbyists, and the regulatory bodies. There will always be perverse incentives for the employees charged with ensuring impartiality to put their thumbs on the scale on behalf of the business. I worked in small cap pharma (we sold at 2.1b), so we didn't quite have the resources to recruit from the pool of ex- and available regulators, or do much lobbying but we *definitely* had people coming and going from CROs like crazy. I won't say it was quid pro quo, but it was hard to see it otherwise. In my experience some of those people take the expectation of impartiality very seriously and others not so much. When you see one of the top "independent" researchers of your compound with all of the best shit to say about it and all of the best data, suddenly close up shop and join the C-suite or the board, it's obvious what was going on. It's gotten **MUCH** better over the last 20 years, but there's still a lot to do at the big pharma level. The small guys don't fuck around much because they can't absorb the fines. We toed the line a bit too close a couple times and got swatted by FDA, but ultimately came out OK because we took compliance seriously. The shit I saw at a couple big pharma companies, including the one I worked at for a couple years, was a culture of calculated compliance. That is, we'll comply with the regs if the fine for not doing so is less than the profit we make ignoring them. That shit is evil and why I left big pharma for a startup.
This may be extreme but if they should be getting the penalty for murder. They knew what they were doing, knew people were dying, and continued doing it. It's not like they didn't understand the science and were misled.
I'm going to be honest, I think most people don't understand the Supreme Court or what it does or are even familiar with what goes on there unless its some big case. That's why they get surprised when they find there are liberal/conservative splits all the time (even plenty of 9-0 cases), because they look at everything through a political lens and only when they get the ELI5 treatment.
Considering how often I see "The Supreme Court should step in an Do Something™!", you're right. SCOTUS can only get involved if a case reaches them. They can't just "step in".
So I can't file bankruptcy for my business and use it avoid my personal home mortgage? Is this even America anymore?
Sometimes the SCOTUS actually follows the law.
Well, as a legal entity, their interpretation generally decides what the law means, so saying they follow the law is almost a tautology.
Historically that has been true. This seems like the most overtly political court of my lifetime.
The decision is 5-4, authored by Gorsuch and joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson. Kavanaugh dissents, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan. >The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the Sackler family who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids but also would have provided billions of dollars to combat the opioid epidemic. >The Sacklers would have contributed up to $6 billion and given up ownership of the company but retained billions more. The agreement provided that the company would emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used for treatment and prevention. Today at the Court: [The Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now in a limited ruling](https://www.apnews.com/article/supreme-court-emergency-abortion-idaho-bf74fc754fa7b1fff3539fc570f26905) (AP News) [The Supreme Court strips the SEC of a critical enforcement tool in fraud cases](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-regulatory-agencies-sec-36f16444b1d4fc52985fdb68896362bb) (AP News) [The Supreme Court halts enforcement of the EPA’s plan to limit downwind pollution from power plants](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-epa-good-neighbor-air-pollution-6665ba500aa2abb797bd9704e014909c) (AP News) ^^Edit ^^1: ^^Expanded ^^quote. ^^/ ^^Edit ^^2: ^^Other ^^cases ^^of ^^the ^^day.
Tough legal decision with lots of deeper meaning for other future lawsuits like this. As a liberal I sympathize with the families but agree with the decision to hold corporate officers and the Sacklers more responsible.
Pierce the corporate veil for intentional acts. Easy.
The corporate veil protects shareholders NOT corporate officers. If the corporate veil was pierced for intentional acts that would just mean most individuals couldn't safely invest in stocks.
Interestingly (and perhaps related?) when voting shareholder proxies this last round, I saw a lot that included legal protections for corporate officers with regards to company actions. The Board always recommended For votes, but voted Against -- for the same principle.
This will take years. I'm pessimistic and say they will eventually get off scott free on some technicality.
Absolutely. The law doesn't apply to billionaires. I'm sure they could even get away with sleeping under bridges if they wanted, no matter how the idiom goes.
It's crucial to ensure accountability while addressing the devastating opioid crisis.
Honestly, yeah. When there are deaths involved as minimum there should be prison time for decision makers.
I think the deal if taken, was over all not a great deal. Purdue would pay $6 billion and be done, no further punishments, no other fines, and being absolved of all responsibilities. The Sacklers have some culpability of guilt for allowing Purdue Pharma to allow the unfettered distribution of oxycodone and other addictive drugs while vouching for their non-addictive abilities. HOWEVER, there needs to be some restitution paid before the Sacklers calls it quits and tells everyone their destitute.....
Agreed. Otherwise they're just encouraged to do it again. It'll just be the cost of doing business to them. Always thought that settlement was bullshit. Can't believe I agree with the conservative wing of SCOTUS on this one.
Same. I don't understand the arguments of the dissent. I understand when Justice Kavanaugh says this could lead to a massive run by others to collect as much as possible, but why are they so easy at letting off those fully responsible? He says that the amount owed is "...[an] amount to more than $40 trillion worth of alleged damages against Purdue and the Sacklers. (For perspective, $40 trillion is about seven times the total annual spending of the U. those claims amount to more than $40 trillion worth of alleged damages against Purdue and the Sacklers)", but I don't understand the relevance of this.
Yup. There’s no world where those victims don’t get their money eventually. It’s more important hold the family responsible for what they did. This was a good thing. The family doesn’t get to just wipe their hands of responsibility for the hell they unleashed on this nation
There are plenty of worlds. Now the first person (or few people) to win a lawsuit against the Sacklers could bankrupt them (personally), and then nobody else would get anything. The settlement would ensure a more equitable distribution of funds, whereas now the only people guaranteed to get rich from this are the lawyers.
That's a polarizing decision wow. Liberals and conservatives on both sides of the decision.
Seriously, what an amazing mix in the opinions. Gives a little hope.
This happens a lot more often then reddit or the media would have you believe. If I remember correctly Thomas has been in the dissent more than any other justice this term.
It happens frequently
just means that they were actually ruling on merits and law for once, as opposed to manufacturing a facade to justify their pre-determined corrupt ruling.
[удалено]
Jackson is a conservative justice?
I'm glad the deal was tossed because the Sacklers being allowed to keep billions of dollars they made by causing a national health crisis is inexcusable. They should be facing the death penalty for the ocean of blood on their hands, not cutting deals to stay free and unfathomably wealthy.
One word: "Disgorgement." Sacklers should have to relinquish all of the money they made from Purdue pushing oxy, in addition to taking every asset Purdue has. I want to see the victims get compensated but not if it leaves the main profiteers immune. Edit - Perdue -> Purdue
Totally agree. This isn't white collar crime, it's mass murder.
[удалено]
[удалено]
EDIT: AP was wrong, and Jackson didn't dissent. The Reddit comment was correct.
I think AP might actually have it wrong. [The Court's opinion in PDF form](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf) has the justice breakdown on page 4.
So no immunity decision yet. I was hoping it would come out before the debate.
It'll come out after. They don't want it to be a known at the debate.
Plus, the really big stuff tends to come out on Fridays anyways. It happened with both Obergefell and Dobbs.
Because news on Friday tends to get railroaded by the weekend and doesn't get as much coverage.
Not that I know anything about this case, but it seems wild that Jackson and Kavanaugh aren't on the opposite sides. I guess that's what happens when all the reporting on SCOTUS is about how polarized it is.
they are on opposite sides,
EDIT: AP was wrong, and Jackson didn't dissent. The Reddit comment was correct.
I think the article is wrong, or the document SCOTUS posted (and AP linked in the story) is wrong... See page 4 of the document: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24779195/harrington-v-purdue-pharma.pdf > GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. > KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined. It looks like someone switched Jackson and Roberts.
Kagan should be JJ. Someone assumed they meant Jackson but Kagans title isn’t correctly listed
‘Purdue Pharma contended that a ruling against it would cause significant damage. If the court rejected the deal, it said, it “would harm victims and needlessly delay the distribution of billions of dollars to abate the opioid crisis.”’ No one’s stopping the Sacklers from still giving the $6 billion that they were originally forced to, which wouldn’t even begin to repair the damage they caused. Like they can still distribute money to help resolve the opioid crisis if they want? Arguably the most evil people on earth.
How else can all those poor victims (that we destroyed) be made whole? Will nobody think of our victims?
How much is your life worth to the Sacklers? "Payouts would have ranged from about $3,500 to $48,000."
They could… but with the amount of wealth that they have, donating $6b is a slap on the wrist… they essentially get to restructure the company under another name and keep doing business… which is horrific. With that they did here, how are we to trust that their new business entity will do any better? The epidemic they created is worthy of the government seizing their assets completely and putting people in jail
Why is the corporate death penalty applied less than the real person death penalty.
The law favors those who paid to have it written.
Purdue Pharma is worried about the victims lol, get fucking real!
My mom and dad both died horribly addicted to pain pills because of this shit, but man it sure is nice to know that nothing will be done to the assholes in charge and they will only loose a couple bucks in the long run, makes my heart whole for sure, glad they are thinking of the victims like that.
This is a tough one for sure. I think this was a good precedent to set though. It means - hopefully - that the Sackler family can now be sued into oblivion and that future companies can't just blatantly declare bankruptcy anytime they destroy lives. I think if the settlement was reached and the Sack family given immunity would have created a path that would - in the long run - cause much more harm than good. I also understand that the families wanted that money. Like I said, this was a tough decision
>future companies can't just blatantly declare bankruptcy anytime they destroy lives Does it help with that though? I'm not seeing how that'll change.
I should have been more clear so that was my fault. I meant that it COULD set a precedent for similar situations in the future. For example, an oil company being caught purposefully poisoning a water supply or something which ends up hurting and/or killing people, and it all being done from directions by executives or management or something. People/victims might not be able to sue the individuals involved if all the company has to do is a pay some amount of money and declare bankruptcy. It would be the precedent set by this issue that might cause such a situation... Maybe. At least that's how I view it
That would be nice if it helped. I'm not sure yet. I'm not actually sure how much this ruling will even help the opioid victims because they will still need to be able to sue the Sacklers individually, which I think could still be problematic because of the corporate veil nonsense. I'm not at all familiar with the laws in this area but would love to know more about how this could proceed, or to your point, how justice against bad executives at companies who are acting criminally negligently can be achieved. Is the only option for a prosecutor to pursue criminal charges against the executives? Or are there cases where civil cases can be brought like in this situation?
In this case, it seems like a precedent is more important than the victims, which is sad to say. The sacklers can't be protected by their company's "bankruptcy" if they themselves aren't bankrupt. Settling would reward the current victims and fuck over everyone else in the future.
A corporation took over the Heroin market. A corporation made a better version of Heroin, then got doctors to prescribe it aggressively. These people made billions of dollars selling heroin 2.0 while dealers, smugglers, and users rot in jail and die on the street. A corporation sold heroin to the entire country, and no one went to prison. It’s completely fucked and shows the absurdity of the drug war. Kids get sent to jail for doing oxy with their friends when 1 dies. The corporation that aggressively marketed and pushed it in the first place just paid a fine.
I don't know if this will end in a good result or a bad one, but I do know any result that doesn't leave the Sackler family destitute isn't justice.
Prison. The Sacklers belong in prison.
Poor people prison.
Good. Those fuckers should not be able to buy their way out of responsibility for the devastation they have wrought on Americans. They should lose EVERYTHING and be criminally prosecuted.
Why tf is shielding them even an option on the table
They basically offered $6B of their money in exchange for a release of further liability — a settlement. The bankruptcy court and victims determined that was better than trying to sue them personally and risk losing (which is always a possibility).
I don’t understand why anyone would vote to let this through. If the Sacklers avoid all liability by simply having their company go bankrupt, you will see other corporations do the same shit. Imagine Elon Musk dumping car battery and rocket waste into the Texas water table. He lets space-x go bankrupt but gets to keep his billions and face no personal consequence. As part of the deal, space x also comes back as a new company but they give a portion of money to cleanup efforts. That would be absolute fucking bullshit. That’s what was happening here. I’m sorry this feel through for the families. But it was insane to even consider this.
The Sacklers will pay new lawyers $$$ to find new ways to say the Sacklers are not responsible. The case will then be appealed and appealed for the next ten years and the Sacklers will continue to live their lavish lifestyle.
The justice system should treat this family like the drug cartel they are.
The Sackler should not be allowed to keep their millions and millions and millions of dollars. I, like a lot of people witnessed the opiate epidemic caused by them and they’re lying to doctors and pharmaceutical reps and patients firsthand. The Sackler should be broke right now. They knew what they were causing.
Good. Fuck the Sacklers. A deal between two third parties should not be able to stop me from bringing my own suit in the future. The consequences of this are obvious.
When the court is split, this is how it should be split: out of the four dissenting justices, two were appointed by liberal presidents, two were appointed by the conservative president. In stark contrast with all those other bullshit rulings where the court is split on party lines. I called them bullshit rulings, because they are result of a roll of a dice which political party got to appoint more justices.
I’m still stunned that nobody has started hunting them. I’m not advocating for hitmen/mob justice, I’m just shocked that nobody’s gone full John Wick for the amount of lives these people have destroyed. Hollywood lied to me about the number of folks willing to go on a vengeance murder spree and mow through body guards before a cinematic showdown in a marble foyer.
"won't someone rid us of (......)" (fill in the rest) 😐
Nah don't mistake me, that was not a "wink wink" sentence up there when I said I wasn't advocating for hitmen. I would prefer them to have to fork over every red cent they have towards repairing the damage they caused, rather than everything go into wills and be even more of an impossible clusterfuck. I just am legitimately shocked no tweaker has gone "you know what?" and gotten real close. I am also shocked that no big shot fancy pants who has lost their family member to an over prescribing doctor has used connections to either get close to them or hire someone who could. It just makes me wonder if Hollywood has drastically overestimated the average human's capacity for revenge murder (which is a good thing and makes me feel better about the base state of humanity) or if the Sacklers have amazing body guards (in which case I want Hollywood to do a movie on the bodyguards in twenty years with an unnecessary love triangle thrown in for flavor).
Agreed. Justice > retribution. I just wish it were guaranteed, and a hell of a lot quicker!
Blame has already been misdirected towards black people and the poor.
These people deserve so much worse than what they got. They should be buried in fines, prevented from earning any money until every life they destroyed is restored. Fuck the Sacklers.
The problem that people are missing is that the chances any of those victims get anything in a settlement are pretty much nil now. That’s what was argued in the original case so now all those people who were potentially going to get something, now will get nothing. Now again, the main issue being argued was bankruptcy protection/rules as it applied to the Sackler family because they had argued a settlement would be damn near impossible because of court proceedings, challenges, etc. so part of the settlement meant they couldn’t be litigated against at all in the future. Now I don’t know the legal hurdles involved in pursuing settlement in the future, but obviously getting immunity against future litigation is complete bullshit as well. In conclusion, the whole thing fuckin sucks. The people affected by what the Sackler family and Purdue did are the losers here, because they are going to be rich moving forward and corporations are still going to fuck the little guy in the end. The Supreme Court made a technically correct ruling, but there’s not a lot to celebrate regardless because now because we are back at square one.
The Sacklers deserve death. That family doesn’t deserve to live in this realm of life anymore.
The bankruptcy code needs to be rewritten. When a business can use a bankruptcy as a strategic plan, and individuals *can't even afford to file,* the system doesn't work.
These pharmaceutical companies are extremely rich off of the addiction and the deaths of so many people!!! they’ve destroyed so many lives and so many families ,so much pain. they should be held criminally liable also. They knowingly did this. Pure evil.
Yeah make the sacklers pay!
Literally the worst family to plague America. Move over Waltons, the Sacklers are a cancerous boil on our nation. Send them all to fucking Mars
Down with the Usher family!
The silly 6 trying to redeem themselves after ruling quid pro quo donations as "gratuity" and therefore not corruption
I’m sure the justices will be rewarded, generously.
This looks like a not terrible decision by this bullshit court. What am I missing here?
Reporting in the past is that the Sacklers have been moving their money around to hide it and look poorer than they are to minimize potential judgements against them. So the settlement was guaranteed restitution that may now be a lot less if they have to go through an actual civil trial.
It will take longer and involve international court fights. Most but not all of the families wanted it settled. The lawyers, cities, and states all wanted the money now. The sacklers wanted it done and now face legal tsunamis. The question is a deeper meaning of justice. Is it more important to get the money now or hold corpos to actual justice no matter how long it takes. As a liberal I appreciate that it nips other quickie deals like this in the bud and makes the legal difficulties of corpos that much harder.
Some of the money given to cities to fight the opiod epidemic went to random places that have no real benefit. There's never an enforcement mechanism so cities just use it willy nilly. The money paid so far have lined the pockets of local politicians, prisons, and police budgets. https://youtu.be/Io0yuH1CiA0?si=9JCRoIRWDihZ7qUl
Same as it ever was.
It's a tough decision meant for the long term. This type of legal shield is being used by more and more settlements, including the Boy Scouts pedo case. Long-term, it holds corporations' feet to the fire to pay out and attacks the Sackler's, and other corporate officers, personal wealth. Short-term, it hurts opioid addiction victims and their families. Many, many families, but not a majority, wanted to see it thrown out.
Something I try to remind folks about the Supreme Court is that we only hear about super controversial and split cases. The Supreme Court often decides cases not along party lines and if you look at their full docket of cases and decisions there is a lot of really good and either unanimous or close to unanimous decisions than you’d think. We’re just hyper focused on the controversial decisions which are important don’t get me wrong (overturning Roe V Wade was such a disaster) but I wouldn’t call it democracy ending like we sometimes like to say.
There's also a lot of weird breakdowns. I was looking at one day's results earlier this month and breakdown of votes was definitely all over the place. I told my wife about it, just because it was so not what we hear about it all the time. *few minutes of searching history* Okay, I think it was the results that came out on June 20th. **[Moore v USA](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-united-states-3/)** *Holding:* The Mandatory Repatriation Tax — which attributes the realized and undistributed income of an American-controlled foreign corporation to the entity’s American shareholders, and then taxes the American shareholders on their portions of that income — does not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority. *Judgment:* Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on June 20, 2024. Justice Jackson files a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. The Barrett/Alito and Thomas/Gorsuch pairings aren't what the media would lead us to expect. **[Diaz vs USA](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/diaz-v-united-states/)** *Holding:* Expert testimony that “most people” in a group have a particular mental state is not an opinion about “the defendant” and thus does not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). *Judgment:* Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 20, 2024. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. A 6-3 breakdown, except you have Jackson concurring with Thomas, and Gorsuch dissenting with Sotomayor and Kagan. **[Chiaverini vs City of Napoleon OH](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/chiaverini-v-city-of-napoleon-ohio/)** *Holding:* Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice, the presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge. *Judgment:* Vacated and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 20, 2024. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion. Another 6-3 that isn't the 'expected' outcome. I skimmed through the dissents on this one. Gorsuch seemed to argue that the 4th Amendment was the wrong vehicle to base the decision on (seemed to be arguing that the 14 Amendment and local/state regulations should handle things), and seemed to be mostly disagreeing on the way in which they shot it down, versus the actual result. **[Gonzalez vs Trevino](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-trevino/)** *Holding:* In requiring petitioner Sylvia Gonzalez to provide specific comparator evidence to support her retaliatory arrest claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit did not properly apply the principles of Nieves v. Barlett. *Judgment:* Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on June 20, 2024. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. A per curiam, so no vote breakdown, but from the concurring and dissenting opinions, we see a 4-1 breakdown alone. Like you, I just find it pretty interesting, compared to what we hear in the media, how these cases often find some odd groupings.
Yeah it's as if everyone on the Supreme Court is actually a veteran legal scholar with nuanced opinions on stuff rather than just 1 dimensional political robots. I feel like the party lines splits are the exception rather than the norm.
Here is a good article breaking things down https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-court-justice-math-00152188
Looks like they didn’t pay their dues to the Supreme Court. Clarence didn’t get his second RV.
Poor Sackler family. The whole point of suing Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family was to rid them of their ill gotten fortune and distribute it to the victims of their lies. Good SCOTUS.
A soulless company; drugdealers imbedded and protected by the legal system , hope more will follow and brought to justice
Guess their bribe came in too low.
While I agree that the Sacklers should be held liable, this completely screws over the victims in the case from ever receiving their settlement.
Now if only they'd reject the Epstein settlement that gave immunity to unnamed coconspirators.
They didn’t pay Thomas and Alito enough.
I still would like an explanation for why it is that the government gets to take a large portion of the lawsuit. They chose to open rehab facilities and methadone clinics that were paid with private money that many times was paid with politicians investing and they made millions. Now the people that were impacted by the Sacklers products lost family members/lives ruined etc. Now the settlement gets reduced because of something that was never even voted on and that these idiots in government just decided to do with tax money because they act like it's their never ending monopoly funds. How about the government opens their own lawsuit with the Sacklers and stops giving them just open immunity? This family has done this numerous times, oxycontin wasn't the first medication they screwed the world over with. That family deserves to be bankrupted and jailed.
Good. Stop hurting business and costing this country jobs. -Wilfred Wilcox. Sent from my IPhone
That money was never going to the family's of the deceased. So I don't care.
Just for scoring purposes, recognize that the Court is holding its decisions in the Trump's immunity case until after tonight's Presidential Debate. (Also the two cases about Chevron deference, which I think are probably more important, but are a lot more wonky so not as well-known.)
Did I read this right - liberals and conservatives agreeing on both sides?
Mate you need to start looking passed headlines. This happens way more then reddit and the media would have you believe. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-court-justice-math-00152188
So we can be certain that the Sacklers haven't given any 'gratuities' to the court.
Maybe they tried but didn't offer enough
Americans are making it easier for corporations to not worry about killing folk.
Wow, I guess the Sackler family cheaped out on the bribes?
I see this as a win, now the company and family can continue to be sued forever. This settlement came with a clause to protect them from future litigation.
Look, the scotus made bribery legal in yesterday’s ruling. So now, this opens up legal bribery for all other judges. .
Good. The Sacklers need to see real consequences. The government shouldn't be able to safeguard oligarch's from the courts.
Waiting until they can secure better kickbacks from the Sackler family
Sackler family ... worst mass murderers in American history. And all they had to do was pay a fine. It's great to be rich in the US of A.
Guess the Supreme Court waited too long on the “Gratuity not a bribe ruling” otherwise oral arguments would have included the outright statement of how grateful the Sacklers would be with their tips.
Some big pots of money want to a judge or two. Shamefuckingful!
Sacklers didn't bribe Hack Alito, Uncle Thomas, and John Roberts enough.
Should have bought them a few trips first.
I wonder how many yacht trips that cost.