LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday on whether to allow for the owners of Purdue Pharma to prove billions of dollars in settlements to victims of the opioid epidemic. In exchange, the family would be granted immunity from any future litigants.

This case would have major implications for the future of bankruptcy law. Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson joined “Inside the Issues” host Amrit Singh to break it all down.

Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, declared bankruptcy in 2019, leading to numerous lawsuits from states, hospitals and victims. As part of a bankruptcy agreement, Purdue’s owners, the Sackler family, would pay out $6 billion and give up control of the company.

However, the Justice Department is challenging the settlement, saying it violates federal law by giving the Sackler family immunity from future civil lawsuits.

While Purdue Pharma declared bankruptcy, the Sackler family did not. Levinson says this is why she believes the case has ended up at the Supreme Court.

“This is something we’re actually seeing more of… where you have a third party, who didn’t declare bankruptcy, saying ‘I’m going to be part of this, I’m going to agree to pay out this much money and in exchange, this is it, I will not be sued anymore,’” Levinson said.

The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that could have major implications for Congress’s taxing power.

The specific case involves tax law signed by President Trump in 2017, that taxed people who owned portions of foreign businesses, taxing them on income, the business realized, but the individual might not have taken out of the business.

“The plaintiffs are arguing in this case is, we didn’t make any money, they’re actually arguing it’s an improper property tax,” Levinson said. “The federal government is saying no, this is an entirely proper income tax.”

The ruling of this case could have a major impact on the future for Congress’s ability to tax unrealized gains, including the Democratic-backed wealth tax.