CLEVELAND — The Cleveland Browns are suing the city of Cleveland in federal court as the battle over the future of Huntington Bank Field heats up.
The team is going to court to get clarity on the so-called Modell law, a state law designed to make it harder for sports teams to leave taxpayer-supported venues in their home cities. The Browns are asking a judge to rule that the law is unconstitutional – or that it doesn’t apply to the team’s plan to build a domed stadium in neighboring Brook Park.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, comes just days after Cleveland’s law director said he’s preparing to enforce the Modell law. City Council passed legislation earlier this year obligating the law director to act if it looked like the Browns were on their way out of town.
The Modell law was enacted in 1996 after the Browns left Cleveland for Baltimore. It’s only a few sentences long.
It says an owner of a professional sports team looking to move out of a tax-supported facility must get approval from its host city first – or give that city at least six months’ notice, while giving the host city or area residents a chance buy the team.
Dave Jenkins, the team’s chief operating officer, called the law “vague and unclear.”
In a written statement, he said the Browns filed the lawsuit “to take this matter out of the political domain and ensure we can move this transformative project forward.”
Jenkins said the Browns aren’t interested in a contentious legal fight, but they need to know whether – and how – the Modell law will impact their plans.
Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb broke the news last week that Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam said they’re focusing on building a new stadium in Brook Park – and no longer exploring the possibility of renovating the existing, city-owned stadium on the Downtown lakefront. The team’s lease in Cleveland ends after the 2028 season, and the Browns hope to move in 2029.
RELATED: Browns leaving Downtown Cleveland for Brook Park
The Brook Park proposal, on a former automotive plant site near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, calls for a roughly $2.4 billion domed stadium and more than $1 billion worth of private, mixed-use development around it – parking, offices, entertainment and housing. The Haslams are looking for the public to pay half of the bill for the stadium – approximately $1.2 billion – by borrowing against anticipated tax revenues created by the entire project.
On Tuesday, Cleveland Law Director Mark Griffin said the city is legally required to enforce the Modell law. “Beyond that,” he wrote in an emailed statement, “we must protect our taxpayers’ investment in the team and are committed to doing everything we possibly can to keep them in Downtown Cleveland.”
RELATED: Battle over new Browns stadium could play out in court
Griffin said the law department is compiling information and considering next steps before filing a lawsuit, “which will likely occur in the coming weeks.”
The Browns say those statements and the prospect of litigation are casting a cloud of uncertainty over the Brook Park project.
“The Browns do not desire conflict with the city, but have brought this action to resolve their uncertainty and obtain clarity regarding their rights and obligations, and to enable them to move forward for the benefit of the team’s fans and the region,” the lawsuit says.
In a text message Thursday evening, a city of Cleveland spokesman responded by saying “we were just made aware of this and are gathering information.”
The Modell law, Ohio Revised Code Section 9.67, has never been truly tested.
Alan Weinstein, a professor emeritus of law and urban studies at Cleveland State University, called the law “a toothless tiger” in an interview with News 5 this week.
“Language like ‘opportunity to purchase a team’ doesn't really mean very much in terms of trying to keep the Browns here,” he said. “If I told you that you have an opportunity to purchase my home, and you know, you offered me a price that I was not satisfied with, I'd say ‘thanks, but no, we're not doing the deal.’ It's exactly the same.”
In their lawsuit, the Browns point out that several words used in the law – “notice,” “area,” “opportunity to purchase,” and “elsewhere” – aren’t defined.
“None of these terms provide a person of ordinary intelligence with any notice whatsoever as to what conduct is covered by the statute or what is required to comply,” the lawsuit says. “For example, how far must a team move to be located ‘elsewhere?’ Is a new stadium across the street ‘elsewhere?’ A different location within the same city? Outside the city but within the same county? Outside Northeast Ohio? Outside the state of Ohio?”
The Browns also note that their lease with Cleveland does not require either party to renew after the end of the agreement in 2029.
You can read the full lawsuit below:
