A sprawling legal fight over the opioid crisis has picked up an unexpected second act: a clash between U.S. states and a whistleblower who says he deserves a share of their multibillion-dollar settlement with Walgreens.
At the center is T.J. Novak, a pharmacist whose claims helped trigger a major federal case accusing the pharmacy chain of improperly filling opioid prescriptions and billing public health programs. That case ended with Walgreens agreeing to pay $300 million, half of which was tied to Novak’s claims. His reward: more than $25 million.
But the real money came later. In 2022, more than two dozen states struck their own deal with Walgreens, securing over $4.7 billion to address the fallout from opioid addiction. Novak now argues that settlement quietly wiped out similar claims he held under state laws—and that cutting him out of the payout was unfair.
The states disagree, loudly. In a flood of court filings, they argue the settlement was designed to fund addiction treatment and prevention, not to enrich private tipsters. Rhode Island warned that siding with Novak would turn every large enforcement action into an automatic payday for whistleblowers. North Carolina said its share of the money was aimed at fixing a public harm, not resolving Novak’s claims. Virginia cautioned that no single formula could fairly divide proceeds across nearly 30 states with different laws.
Walgreens and Novak have stayed silent publicly for now. The court’s decision could ripple far beyond this case, reshaping how future state settlements intersect with whistleblower laws.
Immigration Detainees Gain Ground on Legal Fee Recovery
In a separate development, a federal appeals court has opened the door for people wrongfully held in immigration detention to recover their legal costs—deepening a split among U.S. courts.
The ruling, from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covers Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. It says challenges to unlawful detention qualify as “civil actions” under a long-standing federal statute, allowing successful challengers to seek reimbursement if the government’s position wasn’t justified.
Supporters say the decision could make it easier for detainees—many of whom lack resources—to find representation, especially as detention numbers climb. Other appeals courts have gone the opposite way, setting up a conflict that could eventually land before the Supreme Court.
Justice Department Flags Flaws in Fashion Nova Settlement
The U.S. Justice Department has also stepped into a consumer case involving website accessibility for blind shoppers, objecting to a proposed $5.15 million settlement with fashion retailer Fashion Nova.
The government raised eyebrows over the fee structure, noting that the amount earmarked for legal costs rivals what’s set aside for affected consumers. More strikingly, it argued that the very website created to process compensation claims may itself be inaccessible to visually impaired users—undercutting the purpose of the deal.
A judge will now decide whether the settlement stands or heads back to the drawing board.
Three disputes, one theme: who gets paid, who gets protected, and how the fine print of big settlements can spark battles long after the headlines fade.
