Science
What the Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear the Purdue Pharma Case Means
The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it would pause a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would give billions of dollars to those harmed by the opioid epidemic in exchange for shielding members of the wealthy Sackler family from additional opioid-related lawsuits.
The settlement involving Purdue, the maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin, touches on one of the country’s largest public health crises. The court put the case on its docket and is slated to hear oral arguments in December. Experts say the decision may also have important consequences for other cases that use the bankruptcy system to settle claims of mass injuries.
Here’s what you need to know about the court’s decision:
Why did the Supreme Court decide to weigh in?
It’s rare for the Supreme Court to agree to hear a bankruptcy court dispute, experts say, especially one dealing with a settlement agreement in a mass-injury case.
One of the main reasons few such cases make it to the court is that all parties are under pressure to settle. Litigating all the way to the highest court in the nation is a costly and time-consuming proposition. In the Purdue case, it was the U.S. Trustee Program, a watchdog office within the Justice Department, that petitioned the Supreme Court to review the deal.
Several other aspects of the case made it more likely that the Supreme Court would grant review, legal experts said. For one thing, the opioid crisis is an issue of national importance. And such agreements allowing third parties — in this case, the Sacklers, who controlled the company — to be shielded from most liability without declaring bankruptcy themselves are increasingly popular and have divided lower courts.
What are the broader implications for mass-injury cases?
If approved, the deal presents a road map for other businesses and plaintiffs who are more frequently turning to the bankruptcy courts as a tool to resolve mass-injury cases.
On the other hand, a decision by the Supreme Court to block the use of so-called nonconsensual third-party releases — a mechanism that allows the Sackler family to be shielded from civil lawsuits — would most likely jeopardize the entire Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement deal, years in the making.
Experts said they would be watching a number of cases, including the Revlon bankruptcy, as the Purdue case proceeds. A decision against the use of third-party releases could throw those deals into doubt.
How is the Supreme Court likely to view this case?
Legal experts say it’s unclear how the court will view the dispute. On one hand, the court’s conservative majority tends to look favorably on business interests. However, several conservative justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas, have been wary of aggressive litigation tactics. Overall, this court has shown skepticism of lower courts acting without express authorization from Congress.
Nor is it clear how the liberal justices will vote, experts say. Court watchers say this could be the type of procedural case that ends in a split vote, but not necessarily along political or ideological lines.
Why is only the Justice Department objecting to the Purdue plan?
A battle between money and principle is at the heart of the Purdue litigation.
Thousands of Purdue plaintiffs, which include states, local governments, tribes and individuals, have waited years for settlement funds, the value of which erodes as litigation costs mount and time passes. As the Sacklers inched up their offers, even the last handful of states that had held up the deal relented. Bankruptcy court is ultimately a marketplace of blunt pragmatism.
By the time the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard the appeal, $6 billion from the Sacklers was on the table and the only major party still opposed was the U.S. Trustee Program.
Its objection was that if the deal were approved, the Sacklers would get the benefits of bankruptcy, such as foreclosing all Purdue opioid-related lawsuits, without its costs, like handing over their fortune for scrutiny. People who might still want to pursue the individual family members in civil court would be barred from doing so, without having an opportunity to weigh in. The U.S. Trustee argued that their constitutional due process rights would be summarily extinguished.
At this point in the Purdue litigation, only the Justice Department can afford to keep pressing these principles. Tribes, states, local governments and people suffering from the opioid crisis have urgent costs to address.
What does the plan offer states, local governments and tribes?
Under the deal, Purdue would pay $1.2 billion toward the settlement immediately upon emerging from bankruptcy, with millions more expected in the years to come. The Sacklers would pay up to $6 billion over 18 years, with almost $4.5 billion due in the first nine years.
According to an agreement with tribal plaintiffs, all 574 federally recognized Native American tribes are eligible for payouts from a trust worth about $161 million.
Each state has worked up a formula with its local governments for distributing the Purdue money. But all must follow the guidance for use of the money: that it be largely applied to initiatives intended to ease the opioid crisis, including addiction treatment and prevention.
What about individual victims?
According to the current plan, a trust of $700 million to $750 million would be set up for individual victims and families of people who became addicted to OxyContin or died from overdoses.
About 138,000 plaintiffs filed claims; payments are expected to range from about $3,500 to $48,000. Guardians of about 6,550 children who experienced withdrawal symptoms from drug exposure in the womb may each receive about $7,000. Though the payouts are small, the Purdue plan is one of only a very few opioid settlements across the nation that sets aside money for individuals.
If the plan is approved, what happens to Purdue?
Purdue Pharma, which introduced OxyContin in the late 1990s and aggressively marketed it, would cease to exist. It assets would be transferred to a new company called Knoa Pharma. That company, which would be owned by creditors, would manufacture addiction treatment and opioid reversal medicines at no profit. Knoa would continue to make opioids like OxyContin as well as non-opioid drugs, with profits going toward the settlement funds.
Purdue, which no longer markets the opioids it produces, is being supervised by an independent monitor. The Sacklers have been off its board since 2018.
Science
Cluster of farmworkers diagnosed with rare animal-borne disease in Ventura County
A cluster of workers at Ventura County berry farms have been diagnosed with a rare disease often transmitted through sick animals’ urine, according to a public health advisory distributed to local doctors by county health officials Tuesday.
The bacterial infection, leptospirosis, has resulted in severe symptoms for some workers, including meningitis, an inflammation of the brain lining and spinal cord. Symptoms for mild cases included headaches and fevers.
The disease, which can be fatal, rarely spreads from human to human, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Ventura County Public Health has not given an official case count but said it had not identified any cases outside of the agriculture sector. The county’s agriculture commissioner was aware of 18 cases, the Ventura County Star reported.
The health department said it was first contacted by a local physician in October, who reported an unusual trend in symptoms among hospital patients.
After launching an investigation, the department identified leptospirosis as a probable cause of the illness and found most patients worked on caneberry farms that utilize hoop houses — greenhouse structures to shelter the crops.
As the investigation to identify any additional cases and the exact sources of exposure continues, Ventura County Public Health has asked healthcare providers to consider a leptospirosis diagnosis for sick agricultural workers, particularly berry harvesters.
Rodents are a common source and transmitter of disease, though other mammals — including livestock, cats and dogs — can transmit it as well.
The disease is spread through bodily fluids, such as urine, and is often contracted through cuts and abrasions that contact contaminated water and soil, where the bacteria can survive for months.
Humans can also contract the illness through contaminated food; however, the county health agency has found no known health risks to the general public, including through the contact or consumption of caneberries such as raspberries and blackberries.
Symptom onset typically occurs between two and 30 days after exposure, and symptoms can last for months if untreated, according to the CDC.
The illness often begins with mild symptoms, with fevers, chills, vomiting and headaches. Some cases can then enter a second, more severe phase that can result in kidney or liver failure.
Ventura County Public Health recommends agriculture and berry harvesters regularly rinse any cuts with soap and water and cover them with bandages. They also recommend wearing waterproof clothing and protection while working outdoors, including gloves and long-sleeve shirts and pants.
While there is no evidence of spread to the larger community, according to the department, residents should wash hands frequently and work to control rodents around their property if possible.
Pet owners can consult a veterinarian about leptospirosis vaccinations and should keep pets away from ponds, lakes and other natural bodies of water.
Science
Political stress: Can you stay engaged without sacrificing your mental health?
It’s been two weeks since Donald Trump won the presidential election, but Stacey Lamirand’s brain hasn’t stopped churning.
“I still think about the election all the time,” said the 60-year-old Bay Area resident, who wanted a Kamala Harris victory so badly that she flew to Pennsylvania and knocked on voters’ doors in the final days of the campaign. “I honestly don’t know what to do about that.”
Neither do the psychologists and political scientists who have been tracking the country’s slide toward toxic levels of partisanship.
Fully 69% of U.S. adults found the presidential election a significant source of stress in their lives, the American Psychological Assn. said in its latest Stress in America report.
The distress was present across the political spectrum, with 80% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats and 73% of independents surveyed saying they were stressed about the country’s future.
That’s unhealthy for the body politic — and for voters themselves. Stress can cause muscle tension, headaches, sleep problems and loss of appetite. Chronic stress can inflict more serious damage to the immune system and make people more vulnerable to heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, infertility, clinical anxiety, depression and other ailments.
In most circumstances, the sound medical advice is to disengage from the source of stress, therapists said. But when stress is coming from politics, that prescription pits the health of the individual against the health of the nation.
“I’m worried about people totally withdrawing from politics because it’s unpleasant,” said Aaron Weinschenk, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay who studies political behavior and elections. “We don’t want them to do that. But we also don’t want them to feel sick.”
Modern life is full of stressors of all kinds: paying bills, pleasing difficult bosses, getting along with frenemies, caring for children or aging parents (or both).
The stress that stems from politics isn’t fundamentally different from other kinds of stress. What’s unique about it is the way it encompasses and enhances other sources of stress, said Brett Ford, a social psychologist at the University of Toronto who studies the link between emotions and political engagement.
For instance, she said, elections have the potential to make everyday stressors like money and health concerns more difficult to manage as candidates debate policies that could raise the price of gas or cut off access to certain kinds of medical care.
Layered on top of that is the fact that political disagreements have morphed into moral conflicts that are perceived as pitting good against evil.
“When someone comes into power who is not on the same page as you morally, that can hit very deeply,” Ford said.
Partisanship and polarization have raised the stakes as well. Voters who feel a strong connection to a political party become more invested in its success. That can make a loss at the ballot box feel like a personal defeat, she said.
There’s also the fact that we have limited control over the outcome of an election. A patient with heart disease can improve their prognosis by taking medicine, changing their diet, getting more exercise or quitting smoking. But a person with political stress is largely at the mercy of others.
“Politics is many forms of stress all rolled into one,” Ford said.
Weinschenk observed this firsthand the day after the election.
“I could feel it when I went into my classroom,” said the professor, whose research has found that people with political anxiety aren’t necessarily anxious in general. “I have a student who’s transgender and a couple of students who are gay. Their emotional state was so closed down.”
That’s almost to be expected in a place like Wisconsin, whose swing-state status caused residents to be bombarded with political messages. The more campaign ads a person is exposed to, the greater the risk of being diagnosed with anxiety, depression or another psychological ailment, according to a 2022 study in the journal PLOS One.
Political messages seem designed to keep voters “emotionally on edge,” said Vaile Wright, a licensed psychologist in Villa Park, Ill., and a member of the APA’s Stress in America team.
“It encourages emotion to drive our decision-making behavior, as opposed to logic,” Wright said. “When we’re really emotionally stimulated, it makes it so much more challenging to have civil conversation. For politicians, I think that’s powerful, because emotions can be very easily manipulated.”
Making voters feel anxious is a tried-and-true way to grab their attention, said Christopher Ojeda, a political scientist at UC Merced who studies mental health and politics.
“Feelings of anxiety can be mobilizing, definitely,” he said. “That’s why politicians make fear appeals — they want people to get engaged.”
On the other hand, “feelings of depression are demobilizing and take you out of the political system,” said Ojeda, author of “The Sad Citizen: How Politics is Depressing and Why it Matters.”
“What [these feelings] can tell you is, ‘Things aren’t going the way I want them to. Maybe I need to step back,’” he said.
Genessa Krasnow has been seeing a lot of that since the election.
The Seattle entrepreneur, who also campaigned for Harris, said it grates on her to see people laughing in restaurants “as if nothing had happened.” At a recent book club meeting, her fellow group members were willing to let her vent about politics for five minutes, but they weren’t interested in discussing ways they could counteract the incoming president.
“They’re in a state of disengagement,” said Krasnow, who is 56. She, meanwhile, is looking for new ways to reach young voters.
“I am exhausted. I am so sad,” she said. “But I don’t believe that disengaging is the answer.”
That’s the fundamental trade-off, Ojeda said, and there’s no one-size-fits-all solution.
“Everyone has to make a decision about how much engagement they can tolerate without undermining their psychological well-being,” he said.
Lamirand took steps to protect her mental health by cutting social media ties with people whose values aren’t aligned with hers. But she will remain politically active and expects to volunteer for phone-banking duty soon.
“Doing something is the only thing that allows me to feel better,” Lamirand said. “It allows me to feel some level of control.”
Ideally, Ford said, people would not have to choose between being politically active and preserving their mental health. She is investigating ways to help people feel hopeful, inspired and compassionate about political challenges, since these emotions can motivate action without triggering stress and anxiety.
“We want to counteract this pattern where the more involved you are, the worse you are,” Ford said.
The benefits would be felt across the political spectrum. In the APA survey, similar shares of Democrats, Republicans and independents agreed with statements like, “It causes me stress that politicians aren’t talking about the things that are most important to me,” and, “The political climate has caused strain between my family members and me.”
“Both sides are very invested in this country, and that is a good thing,” Wright said. “Antipathy and hopelessness really doesn’t serve us in the long run.”
Science
Video: SpaceX Unable to Recover Booster Stage During Sixth Test Flight
President-elect Donald Trump joined Elon Musk in Texas and watched the launch from a nearby location on Tuesday. While the Starship’s giant booster stage was unable to repeat a “chopsticks” landing, the vehicle’s upper stage successfully splashed down in the Indian Ocean.
-
Business1 week ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
Science6 days ago
Trump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Technology1 week ago
Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
-
Lifestyle1 week ago
Some in the U.S. farm industry are alarmed by Trump's embrace of RFK Jr. and tariffs
-
World1 week ago
Protesters in Slovakia rally against Robert Fico’s populist government
-
Health3 days ago
Holiday gatherings can lead to stress eating: Try these 5 tips to control it
-
News1 week ago
They disagree about a lot, but these singers figure out how to stay in harmony