Amy Howe

Oct 12 2023

Purdue Pharma, tax cases headline December argument session

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Dec. 4 in the challenge to the legality of the bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin. The argument in the Purdue Pharma case is one of eight cases scheduled for seven hours of oral argument in the court’s December argument calendar, which was released on Thursday morning.

The justices had indicated in August that the Purdue Pharma case would be slated for argument during their December argument session in a brief order that also put the bankruptcy plan on hold at the request of the U.S. Trustee, the division of the U.S. Department of Justice that oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases. The bankruptcy judge who confirmed the plan in 2021 called the confirmation a “bitter result,” because it would shield the Sackler family, the owners of the drug company, from lawsuits, but he said that the settlement was the only way to provide funding for communities to address the problems caused by opioids.

The justices will also hear oral argument on Dec. 5 in a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that required U.S. taxpayers who owned shares in foreign corporations to pay a one-time tax on their share of the corporation’s earnings, even if those earnings were reinvested in the corporation. A Washington state couple contends that the tax, known as the “mandatory repatriation tax,” violates the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to impose an income tax. The Supreme Court’s cases interpreting that amendment, the couple argues, requires income to be distributed before it can be taxed; therefore, the mandatory repatriation tax is instead a direct tax, which the Constitution requires to be distributed among the states.

The justices did not schedule Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which they will revisit their landmark ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, holding that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute as long as that interpretation is reasonable, for argument in December. As John Elwood noted in his Relist Watch column for SCOTUSblog, the justices will consider another case involving the same issue – but from which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is not recused – at Friday’s conference.

Here’s the full list of cases scheduled for the December 2023 argument session:

Brown v. United States (consolidated with Jackson v. United States) (Nov. 27) – Whether the definition of “serious drug offense” in the Armed Career Criminal Act incorporates the federal drug schedules that were in effect when the individual committed the firearm offense, or instead the schedules that were in effect at the time of the state drug offense.

McElrath v. Georgia (Nov. 28) – A challenge by a Georgia man who was found not guilty by reason of insanity on one charge arising from the stabbing death of his mother and guilty but mentally ill on another charge to the state’s ability to try him again on the charge on which he was acquitted.

Wilkinson v. Garland (Nov. 28) – Whether federal courts have the power to review an agency’s determination that a noncitizen did not meet the “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship requirement to cancel deportation.

SEC v. Jarkesy (Nov. 29) – A challenge to the SEC’s use of in-house judges.

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma (Dec. 4) – Whether the Bankruptcy Code gives a court the power to approve a release that extinguishes claims against third parties, without the consent of the individuals or entities holding the claims.

Moore v. United States (Dec. 5) – Whether a federal “mandatory repatriation tax” violates the 16th Amendment.

Muldrow v. St. Louis (Dec. 6) – What protections does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide to employees who contend they were the victim of a discriminatory transfer?

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Supreme Court issues two rulings specifying where challenges to EPA actions on clean air must be filed
  • Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on certain medical treatments for transgender minors
  • Businesses challenge Trump’s tariffs before Supreme Court
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies