CLEVELAND, Ohio — A Cincinnati-based federal appeals court on Thursday denied Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s attempt to halt a major opioid trial set to begin next week for claims made by Cuyahoga and Summit counties.

A three-judge panel from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Yost’s argument that a delay imposed by the appeals court was the only way to ensure the state could properly advocate on behalf of all Ohio residents against drug manufacturers and distributors.

The judges noted that the state did not object when the counties’ cases were consolidated nearly two years ago in a massive set of federal litigation for lawsuits against drug companies.

“The parties have conducted extensive discovery, filed numerous pleadings and, in some cases, reached settlements,” the order reads. “In view of these circumstances, we decline to exercise our discretion to deploy one of ‘the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal.’”

Yost spokesman David O’Neil said the appeals court “did not say the state’s argument was incorrect or not valid, but that the issue should be addressed with the trial court.” He said the office was reviewing its options.

Following the 6th Circuit panel’s ruling on Thursday, the attorney general’s office asked the panel to halt the trial while it asks the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. The panel rejected the request.

The decision removes a hurdle Cuyahoga and Summit counties have to present evidence to a jury to show that drug manufacturers and distributors are accountable for the opioid epidemic, which saw thousands of overdose deaths over more than a decade. The counties are seeking billions of dollars to recoup costs for services it provided in relation to the opioid epidemic.

The 6th Circuit on Thursday also rejected a separate attempt to have U.S. District Judge Dan Polster removed from the more than 2,500 lawsuits consolidated in front of him.

Jury selection is set to begin next week in Polster’s courtroom in Cleveland. The trial is expected to run through December. It is the first federal trial and is designed to test how a jury will react to claims that drug companies fueled the epidemic.

Several drug manufacturers have reached settlements with Cuyahoga and Summit counties ahead of trial worth more than $60 million. OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma also has an agreement to settle all the lawsuits it faces nationwide, though many state attorneys general oppose the agreement and it is now in the hands of a bankruptcy judge.

While Polster was assigned to oversee the litigation in late 2017, a power struggle emerged in recent months between lawyers representing cities and counties in federal court and state attorneys general litigating their cases in state court.

The struggle was encapsulated when Yost asked the 6th Circuit on Aug. 30 to step in and halt the federal trial. He argued that Supreme Court case law says that only the state of Ohio can speak on behalf of all its residents.

Every Ohio county should have access to money from the results of the opioid lawsuits, but that money should come from the state’s litigation and not through individual lawsuits filed by smaller governments, the attorney general argued. The attorney general has also said two drug companies that settled with the counties have asserted arguments they can deduct what they paid the counties from whatever they may end up paying the state.

The 6th Circuit panel notes in its order that Polster issued a ruling in December that rejected arguments similar to the ones Yost’s office made and that the state made no attempt to intervene in the federal litigation to raise the issues.

The state argued that such a move would force it to litigate its cases in federal court, though the 6th Circuit cited case law that contradicted this assertion.

The Ohio attorney general’s legal maneuver drew support from other state attorneys general and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It also drew criticism from leaders in Cuyahoga and Summit counties.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said he thought it was the wrong tactic and noted that “a great deal of the cost has been borne by the local entities.”

The governor, who was at cleveland.com’s office Thursday for an editorial board meeting, declined further comment and said he has made his feelings known.