Browns' Stadium Move Hinges on Change to Murky Modell Law

Yahoo

18 hours ago

The Ohio legislature is contemplating changes to Ohio Revised Code 9.67, better known as the Art Modell Law, which would facilitate the Cleveland Browns moving to a new stadium located less than a mile from Cleveland's city line.
As Sportico has detailed, the Browns and the city of Cleveland have sued each other in different courts over whether and how the Modell Law applies to a proposed stadium project in Brook Park, Ohio, a fellow city in Cuyahoga County. This law blocks Ohio-based pro teams that use a 'tax-supported facility for most of its home games' and that 'receive financial assistance' from playing home games 'elsewhere' unless they satisfy assorted requirements such as offering the team for sale to the government or local buyers.
Advertisement
More from Sportico.com
A key part of the legal dispute is how to interpret the word 'elsewhere,' which is not defined. It could mean a move to, literally, anywhere else—even down the street. Or it could mean a move to a different state. The latter is arguably what politicians and then-Ohio Gov. George Voinovich intended in the mid 1990s. The Modell Law was enacted as a response to the original Browns moving to Maryland in 1995 and becoming the Baltimore Ravens.
As reported by Cleveland.com, lawmakers in Ohio are considering a new budget that would clarify the Modell Law applies only to proposed moves out of Ohio. Another change would indicate that the expiration of the Browns' lease to play in the publicly owned Huntington Bank Field (HBF) in 2028 would count as satisfying the Modell Law. For the changes to go into effect, Gov. Mike DeWine would need to sign them into law. The Browns have repeatedly assured they will fulfill all the terms of the HBF lease and then want to play in a new (and superior) stadium that would host as many as 70 major events a year.
City officials have blasted this legislative activity. A spokesperson for Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb says the revisions would 'fail to protect communities like us when a team decides to leave' and the Browns relocating would constitute 'a betrayal of the city and residents who have stood by the franchise for generations.'
Advertisement
The Haslam Sports Group, which owns the Browns, sees the situation quite differently. In a statement, a spokesperson told Sportico, 'the General Assembly's amendment of the Modell Law confirms that the law is intended only to prevent teams from breaking a lease or leaving the state. The Browns are doing neither of those things. The team is staying right here in Cuyahoga County, less than a mile from the city line, and HSG will honor every commitment of the Browns' current lease. HSG will always maintain its commitment to Northeast Ohio, as the private investment of more than $2 billion in the new enclosed Huntington Bank Field stadium and adjacent mixed-use development in Brook Park shows.'
The prospect of the Browns-Cleveland legal dispute ending via statutory amendment would mean a law that raises legal concerns once again evades judicial scrutiny. The Modell Law has long been subject of debate among legal scholars regarding whether it complies with the U.S. Constitution.
For example, the ambiguity of the word 'elsewhere' is problematic since it could undermine due process. The Browns—or any pro team that wishes to move from a tax-supported facility to another facility within Ohio—are not informed whether the law even applies.
But 'elsewhere' isn't the only problem with the Modell Law. The law also requires teams to provide six months' notice of a move. A notice requirement sounds simple enough, but the law doesn't clarify what actions are needed to start the clock.
Advertisement
For example, the notice clock might start with a team offering a public statement about an intended move. It could also start with a less public conversation between team and government officials. Alternative starting points could include the presentation of renderings, an application for permits, the purchasing of building supplies or the commencement of construction. These moments all occur at different times, and the law doesn't indicate which one, if any, counts.
The Contract Clause as found in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution is also relevant. It prohibits states from impairing 'the obligation of contracts.' The Browns argue their contractual relationship with the NFL, which has extensive legal authority over teams and must approve any change in ownership, would be undermined by a law that requires a sale of the team.
Another potential issue stems from how the Modell Law interacts with the Commerce Clause as found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause provides Congress with the authority to regulate interstate commerce and, as it has been interpreted by courts, prohibits states from enacting economic laws that unduly burden other states' economies. The Modell Law, by requiring ownership to offer to sell to Ohio residents, arguably interferes with other states.
For similar reasons, the Modell Law might run afoul of the Privileges and Immunities Clause found in Article 4, Section 2. This clause prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states. If those citizens are denied the same authority to buy a team, they arguably are deprived of the same rights as Ohio citizens.
Advertisement
While the constitutionality of the Modell Law has been debated in law review articles, it hasn't been tested in court. About seven years ago there was an opportunity for a court to scrutinize the law, but the opportunity ended via settlement. The opportunity came in the form of DeWine, who was Ohio Attorney General at the time, suing Major League Soccer and Columbus Crew's operator/investor (Precourt Sports Ventures) over the Crew's planned move to Austin, Texas. The litigation ended when the Crew were purchased by local buyers—led by the Haslams—and Austin landed an expansion team.
Given the latest legislative developments in Ohio, it's possible the constitutionality of the Modell Law remains more for academic intrigue than practical consequence. Yet the law has still been influential given that it changed the trajectory of the Crew's future and has provided many billable hours for attorneys working on each side in the Browns litigation.
Best of Sportico.com
Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.