Ohio State Auditor David Yost discussing the latest results of his probe into school districts' alleged tampering with school attendance data in Columbus, Ohio. AP Photo: Andrew Welsh-Huggins, File

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has asked a federal appeals court to halt an upcoming bellwether trial over the opioid crisis that he called "legally flawed" and "strikes at our Republic's core structure."

In a petition for writ of mandamus filed Friday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the attorney general argued that the two Ohio counties serving as plaintiffs in the Oct. 21 trial have no legal authority to seek relief from the opioid crisis on behalf of Ohio's residents. The trial, scheduled to take place in Cleveland, is the first bellwether in the multidistrict litigation and follows a $572 million judgment for the state of Oklahoma in the first opioid trial in the nation.

"The rest of Ohio—and Ohio itself—is being left behind in the MDL lawsuit in Cleveland," Yost said in a statement. "The hardest-hit counties of Appalachia and the vast majority of the state are being asked to take a number and wait—and that wait could delay or prevent justice."

The writ asks the Sixth Circuit to halt or delay the trial until the state of Ohio concludes two separate lawsuits it filed in 2017 and 2018 against several of the same opioid manufacturers and distributors.

Spokeswomen for the plaintiffs' executive committee in the multidistrict litigation did not respond to a request for comment.

The trial is between the counties of Cuyahoga and Summit against more than 20 defendants, including manufacturers Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson, and distributors such as McKesson Corp. and AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. The two counties are asking for $8 billion. On Aug. 20, one of the defendants, Endo International, agreed to pay $10 million to settle the claims of the Ohio counties, and on Friday another, Allergan, agreed to pay $5 million. The state of Ohio highlighted those settlements in its writ as an affront to state sovereignty.

"The state's interests are far greater than the sum of its subdivisions' interests—and the statewide, collective harms to Ohio's citizens are not rights that Ohio's political subdivisions can litigate or settle—let alone settle on their own," the writ says.

The trial, the writ continued, is "legally flawed because it invades Ohio's sovereignty and impedes the Ohio Attorney General's ability to litigate on behalf of all Ohioans."

"These are not claims that counties or cities have standing to litigate," according to the writ. "They are claims that Ohio can litigate as parens patriae. The injuries are injuries to the people of Ohio as a whole. The bellwether trial strikes at our Republic's core structure, including its recognition of state sovereignty."

The implications go beyond the trial and Ohio, the writ says, with a potential impact on all states and their subdivisions. The trial would "cripple the federal dual-sovereign structure of these United States" and go against U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

"The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that states have standing to bring claims like these—claims brought on behalf of all the people of a state—but that localities, which are merely parts or administrative subdivisions of the states, do not," the writ says. "These are, after all, the United States, not the United Counties and Cities of America."

The writ also notes that, under law, the funds obtained from the trial go to the general fund, which the state legislature distributes. The multidistrict litigation also has hampered the state's efforts at obtaining settlements with opioid companies. The trial, if it goes forward, would fragment the state's claims, misallocate funds in the state, and lead to inconsistent verdicts, the writ says.

The filing demonstrates the tension between the states, most of which have filed lawsuits in state courts against opioid companies, and about 2,000 cities, counties and other governments that have cases in the multidistrict litigation, which is in the federal Northern District of Ohio. This month, U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio, who is overseeing the multidistrict litigation, acknowledged the simmering conflict, appointing two lawyers who did not also represent states in opioid lawsuits to represent a potential class of cities and counties.

Polster is weighing whether to approve a "negotiation" class of 33,000 cities and counties suing opioid companies as a means to push the cases toward a global opioid settlement.

Among those opposing the idea are attorneys general in 39 states and territories, including the state of Ohio, who had raised concerns about potential conflicts among lead plaintiffs attorneys, allocation of funds and issues of state sovereignty.

Separately, several defendants also have filed a motion to grant more time for the trial, set to last seven weeks.