The wild part is how the justices were split: Gorsuch wrote for the majority, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson. You won't often see these 5 seeing e

The wild part is how the justices were split: Gorsuch wrote for the majority, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson. You won't often see these 5 seeing eye to eye in a split decision. This ruling breaks my usual test that the conservative majority will nearly always side with corporate intersts because this decision definitely isn't pro-corporate. The settlement would essentially shield the Sacklers from all liability and allow them to keep the proceeds of their crimes while paying a fine over a long period of time essentially from future earnings on thse ill-gotten gains. The dissent seemed to say this was bad for 100,000 opioid victims. That's not a reason to legally shield the crooks who profited from their death and suffering. I'm shocked that Kagan and Sotomayor, in particular, went for that line of reasoning. In a just world, the Sacklers would die pennieless in a 6x8 cell. Fines are just the cost of doing business. Intentionally addicting hundreds of thousands (if not millions) to opioids for profit, knowingly, should lead the loss to both your freedom and every dollar you earned from that endeavour.