Opioid decision: Two mothers, two deaths, two views of failed $6 billion settlement

A new Supreme Court opinion stands to reopen wounds for families whose loved ones have been affected by the opioid drug crisis and who disagree on what justice should look like.

The court Thursday threw out a high-profile pharmaceutical settlement worth billions of dollars over a technical question on bankruptcy law. Despite the technicalities, the outcome of the 5-4 decision is deeply personal for the thousands of families of drug overdose victims.

The upended settlement with the Sackler family, which made its fortune selling the drug that fueled an epidemic , will have sweeping implications for states that intended to use settlement money for drug treatment programs. The family had agreed to pay $6 billion to opioid epidemic victims in exchange for being shielded from future civil lawsuits.

Challenging a practice used before in major bankruptcies related to harms caused by asbestos and silicone breast implants , the Justice Department stepped in to question if the Sacklers could be shielded from future lawsuits.

She lost her son and wants Purdue to pay

Lynn Wencus' son, Jeff, died at 33 after years of opioid addiction.

Wencus told USA TODAY last fall, before the Court issued its opinion, that she thought the settlement would do more good than harm for victims like her son.

"Do I want to see them rot in hell? Absolutely," said Wencus, 70 years old at the time and living in Massachusetts. "But if we can get this money and put it into treatment the right way, then we are saving lives."

Like other supporters of the deal, Wencus was not sure if a better agreement could be reached.  The vast majority of known opioid victims and their families backed the settlement.

Edward Neiger, a lawyer who represents 60,000 victims of the opioid crisis, including Wencus, called it "a victim's plan" and said the appeal was "not hurting the Sacklers − it's helping them."

More: Supreme Court throws out multi-billion dollar settlement with Purdue over opioid crisis

This mom doesn't want the Sackler family to 'walk away' unscathed

Ellen Isaacs shares a story eerily similar to that of Wencus − her son, Ryan, went through years of addiction, struggling to find treatment and died at the age of 33.

But Isaacs did not share in Wencus' support for the Sacklers settlement.

"It's absolutely absurd that they think they're just going to be able to walk away with their wealth intact," Isaacs, then 58, told USA TODAY last year.

Opponents, like Isaacs, had questioned the scope of support for the deal and raised the issue of future victims. For instance, under the agreement, a teenager who lost their parents to opioids would have been barred from bringing a claim when she reached adulthood.

More: In McKinsey opioid settlement, company will pay $23M to schools for role pushing OxyContin

Some commend the decision

Ed Bisch, who lost his son Eddie to an overdose in 2001 and has been at the forefront of a fight to hold the Sackler family and Perdue Pharma accountable, said the decision brought “relief, but not total joy.”

“My son is dead, and everyone who fought against (the bankruptcy), our friends and relatives are not here,” Bisch, who lives in Westampton, N.J., said. “But I called this bankruptcy a scam as soon as I read that the Sacklers were looking for immunity” from financial accountability and criminal prosecution.

Asked about families who’d hoped money from opioid settlements might be used by states to combat the opioid epidemic, Bisch admitted that he and his fellow activists “debated and agreed to disagree.”

But, he added, “If we thought for one second that this deal would have turned the tide of the epidemic, we would have reluctantly made the deal with the devil. We don’t believe this would have turned the tide at all.”

Now, Bisch said, he’s hoping the Justice Department will take up a criminal case against the Sacklers and others who he said are responsible for the opioid epidemic.

More: OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma admits role in opioid epidemic, pleads guilty to federal charges

A shared sense of betrayal

Decision-makers in the heart-wrenching debate weighed in on the ramifications.

"Today’s decision is wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in dissent for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority opinion that also included Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The Sackler family said in a statement they "remain hopeful about reaching a resolution that provides substantial resources to help combat a complex public health crisis."

"The unfortunate reality is that the alternative is costly and chaotic legal proceedings in courtrooms across the country," the family wrote. "While we are confident that we would prevail in any future litigation given the profound misrepresentations about our families and the opioid crisis, we continue to believe that a swift negotiated agreement to provide billions of dollars for people and communities in need is the best way forward."

Still, Wencus and Isaacs have found common ground outside the court case.

Both believe the government isn't doing enough to combat addiction. Isaacs said officials should mobilize to distribute the overdose reversal drug Narcan , and Wencus said she believes the country must embrace safe-injection sites where people who are addictedcan use drugs in a controlled setting and more easily access treatment.

And both said they are fighting to honor the memory of their sons.

Contributing: Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY; Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Phaedra Trethan, USA TODAY; and John Fritze .

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Opioid decision: Two mothers, two deaths, two views of failed $6 billion settlement