Supreme Court Ruling Impacts Purdue Pharma and Emergency Abortion Cases

The Supreme Court delivered two significant rulings with far-reaching implications in separate cases involving Purdue Pharma and emergency abortions in Idaho.

In the Purdue Pharma case, the justices voted 5-4 to block the company’s multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan, citing concerns about shielding the Sackler family from liability related to opioid claims.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, argued that the bankruptcy plan violated federal laws by releasing the Sacklers from liability without the consent of creditors or victims.

On the other hand, Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented, pointing out that without such releases, there’s little hope for the victims or governments to recover any funds.

Purdue Pharma, known for its controversial opioid OxyContin, filed for bankruptcy in 2019 amid mounting lawsuits over deceptive marketing practices linked to opioid-related deaths.

In a separate development, the Supreme Court dismissed emergency abortion cases concerning Idaho and the Biden administration‘s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

The order upholds a federal judge’s decision blocking Idaho’s restrictive abortion law from being enforced in cases of emergency medical needs.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett supported the dismissal, highlighting shifts in Idaho’s law and the Biden administration’s stance on abortion access.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the dismissal, emphasizing the urgency of clarifying laws amid ongoing abortion disputes in various states.

This dual set of rulings underscores the Court’s pivotal role in shaping contentious legal battles that intersect with public health and reproductive rights.