The US Supreme Court has refused to hear an unusual case filed by the state of Arizona against Purdue Pharma’s owner family Sackler.

Arizona authorities alleged in a petition that the Sacklers, who have become embroiled in the nation’s opioid epidemic over products such as Purdue’s signature painkiller OxyContin, unlawfully transferred billions of dollars out of their company in order to avoid liabilities.

The state said the family had transferred $4 billion to itself since 2008, along with at least another $2 billion to companies under its control, in violation of a fraud statute on the books in 43 states. The family denied all of the allegations.

Arizona brought its case to the nation’s highest court top in a reverse of the usual procedure. Barred from seeking a trial in a lower court, the state claimed the Supreme Court had “original jurisdiction.”

Background for the claim is a tentative agreement late last year between Purdue and some state and local governments worth up to $12 billion, which is aimed at settling more than 2,000 opioid lawsuits filed by local governments, Native American tribes and states.

The deal supported by 24 states and five territories, but not Arizona, foresaw Purdue filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, with the Sacklers forfeiting $3 billion of their personal fortune. As part of the process, a federal judge granted Purdue and the family temporary legal protection from civil suits brought by state and local governments.

In filing its complaint with the Supreme Court fight, Arizona insisted that the protection from lawsuits did not apply in the highest instance.