City of Cleveland Sues Cleveland Brown’s Over Potential Relocation of Stadium
Cleveland sues the Cleveland Browns claiming they violated the “Modell Law,” Browns respond saying the statute is unconstitutional. By: Marina Ghazarian
The Cleveland Browns have expressed plans to relocate their football stadium. Originally located in the downtown area of Cleveland, they plan to move to a domed stadium outside of the city. As a result, the city of Cleveland sued the Browns, claiming that they violated the “Modell Law,” which requires sports teams playing in taxpayer-funded stadiums to receive permission to move from their home city or to provide six months’ notice. The law was passed in 1996 after Art Modell, the former Browns owner, moved the franchise to Baltimore. The Modell Law imposes responsibilities on sports teams to the community when taxpayer funds are used to finance their stadiums, setting limits on the timing and conditions under which a team can move their stadium.
In response, the Browns have filed a federal lawsuit asserting the unconstitutionality of the Modell Law. They begin by claiming that the law contradicts the NFL’s rules regarding public funding and team relocation, which the Modell Law places restrictions on. The Browns then argue that the Law is vague, particularly focused on the term “in the area,” as it is unclear whether the new location, which is only 20 miles away from the current stadium, qualifies. The due process argument asserts that such vagueness fails to properly notify what type of conduct is prohibited, and how far the team must move for the Law to apply. Additionally, the Browns assert that the Modell Law does not apply in this situation because the team does not plan to move until their lease agreement with the city expires. This is the first time the Modell Law has been legitimately tested since its enactment in 1996. The Browns’ federal lawsuit requests “clarity” on how the law applies to them and their current situation.
The suit was originally filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court after the Browns announced their plans to relocate following the city’s proposal of a $1.2 billion renovation for their current stadium. The Haslam family, who have owned the Browns since 2012, proposed a domed stadium in the Brook Park area, with a surrounding entertainment complex. The new stadium is expected to be a $2.4 billion project and would provide additional benefits as well. The Browns explain that the new central location will appeal more to their regional fanbase while remaining in close proximity to downtown Cleveland and existing infrastructure. Lawyers for the city are asking the judge to encourage team owners to either negotiate a deal with the city to leave or to offer the team for sale to local buyers.
The State filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the federal court should refrain from hearing the Browns’ claims until an Ohio state court analyzes the constitutionality of the Modell Law. The State also emphasizes that the Browns could have avoided their potential violation of the Modell Law by declining to accept taxpayer money. Additionally, the city of Cleveland has also filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that the Northern District lacks jurisdiction over the Browns’ claims, and emphasizes the importance for State courts to first analyze the Modell Law before federal review. Lastly, the city claims that the Browns lack standing because they have not suffered any injury under the Modell Law because the law has not been officially enforced against them.
The continuance of the suit will show if the Modell Law is deemed to be constitutional, which would prevent the Browns from relocating their stadium.
