According to U.S. bankruptcy trustee William Harrington, the plan illegally shields members of the Sackler family from all opioid claimants except the United States in exchange for contributing $6 billion to fund the plan. The government alleges the family members "withdrew approximately $11 billion from Purdue in the 11 years before the company filed for bankruptcy."

"The Sackler release is not authorized by the Bankruptcy Code, constitutes an abuse of the bankruptcy system, and raises serious constitutional questions by extinguishing without consent the property rights of nondebtors against individuals or entities not themselves debtors in bankruptcy," wrote U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in the successful stay application on behalf of the the U.S. Trustee.

The U.S. Trustee Program, a component of the Department of Justice, is a federal watchdog that oversees the bankruptcy system.

In calling for oral arguments, the Supreme Court directed the parties to brief and argue whether "the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants' consent."

An official committee representing Purdue's unsecured creditors has denounced the U.S. Trustee's objections to the Chapter 11 plan.

The committee, represented by a legal team at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, said the government's challenge will only further delay implementation of a plan, which "will unquestionably cause substantial and irreparable harm to individuals, families, and communities across the United States."

Related: Pharma firm Mallinckrodt looks to bankruptcy to avoid $1B in opioid payouts

Purdue, represented at the high court by Latham & Watkins and Davis Polk & Wardwell, similarly argued that the U.S. Trustee's "baseless stay application" would "harm victims and needlessly delay the distribution of billions of dollars to abate the opioid crisis."

"The Trustee purports to speak for individual tort victims here, but the victims have spoken for themselves," Purdue wrote in papers filed with the justices. "They were—and are—zealously represented by their own counsel, they overwhelmingly support the plan, and they oppose the Trustee."

In its order, the Supreme Court accepted the trustee's suggestion that stay application be treated as a petition for review to, in the government's words, "minimize the expenditure of estate resources on further certiorari briefing" and "speed the conclusion of proceedings in this Court."

The case in docketed as Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP. The court has yet to announce an exact date for oral arguments during the December 2023 session.

"The stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court," the Supreme Court stated in its order.