Purdue, the Opioid Court, and the Right to Show Up

I have sat in enough courthouse hallways to recognize the atmosphere: stale coffee, copier toner, old stone, and that quiet moment when people realize the docket is not a metaphor. Courthouses were built for a simple civic purpose: public accountability in a room you can actually enter. Lately, too many of those rooms have been replaced with a link, a waiting room, and a mute button.

So I noticed a small but meaningful thing out of Newark, New Jersey: a judge remembered that justice is supposed to be done where the public can show up.

What happened in the Purdue case

On April 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo postponed Purdue Pharma’s criminal sentencing by one week, moving it from a Zoom hearing to an in-person proceeding set for April 28. The reason was plain: people harmed by the opioid crisis, along with members of the public, arrived and wanted to participate in person. The court accommodated that. Good. Basic. Overdue.

The underlying case is not small. Purdue’s 2020 guilty plea and the planned sentencing are tied to major penalties and the long tail of an epidemic that has killed more than 1 million Americans since 2000, according to Reuters reporting. Reuters also reported that the sentencing is among the final steps before Purdue can complete a bankruptcy settlement intended to deliver about $7.4 billion to those harmed, with the Sackler family contributing at least $6.5 billion. In the criminal case, Reuters reported the hearing would impose a $3.5 billion fine and $2 billion in forfeiture, with the federal government ultimately waiving repayment rights for all but $225 million so Purdue can direct assets to other opioid creditors.

The Orwell check: when “access” becomes a settings menu

We live in a golden age of euphemism. “Remote access” can sound modern and inclusive, and sometimes it helps. But run the Orwell check anyway: when a public proceeding becomes a video link, who controls the waiting room, the mute button, the record, and the feel of shared reality? A courtroom, for all its flaws, is a messy analog check on power. It is harder to stage-manage.

The liberty ledger

• Who benefits from remote-only? Efficiency, smoother closure, fewer unpredictable moments.
• Who pays? Victims and the public, losing not just the right to watch but the right to be felt.

And yes, the DOJ itself describes victims’ rights, including the right to be reasonably heard at sentencing, in its Crime Victims’ Rights Act materials on the Purdue case page. Those rights should not depend on broadband or a frictionless link.

The tradeoff: speed vs legitimacy

A system can be fast, or it can be trusted. Sometimes it can be both, but when forced to choose, legitimacy is the whole game. This one-week delay is not a cure. It is a reminder: the harmed are not an inconvenience to be buffered out of the frame.

Guardrails we still need

• Presume in-person access for major public-interest criminal proceedings, with remote access as a supplement.
• If remote components exist, make the rules clear: entry, comment procedures, recording, and discretion to cut access.
• Treat opioid accountability like an audit: track spending, demand outcomes, and require readable public reporting.

After all these years of opioid devastation, why did it take people on the sidewalk to remind the system that victims belong inside the courthouse?