logo
Browns continue to attack Art Modell Law as "unconstitutional"

Browns continue to attack Art Modell Law as "unconstitutional"

Yahoo20-03-2025
Thirty years after the Browns left Cleveland because they couldn't get a new stadium, the Browns are attacking the law that was passed to keep the Browns from leaving Cleveland in order to get a new stadium.
Dueling pieces of litigation are pending over the Art Modell Law, aimed at preventing a repeat of the team leaving town.
Via the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Browns have asked to amend their pending lawsuit. It's a basic procedural step that is routinely granted.
The Browns continue to attack the Modell Law as unconstitutional. The team's overriding goal is to move to suburban Brook Park.
The Modell Law requires the team to provide six months' notice before leaving town, with residents having a chance to buy the team.
Although it's important for the city and the team to coexist, the lawyers are talking tough — as lawyers often do.
'Our actions in court are intended to ensure that the city's irresponsible and baseless attempt to apply the Modell Law to the Browns does not slow our momentum to build a world-class stadium right here in Northeast Ohio for the Browns, our fans and the entire Ohio region,' Haslam Sports Group's chief administrative officer and general counsel Ted Tywang said in a statement issued to the Plain Dealer.
The Browns filed suit in federal court. The City of Cleveland filed suit in state court. The Browns view federal court, where the judge is appointed for life and not subject to an election, as the preferred forum. The city sees state court, where the judge is accountable to the ballot box, as the better place for the case to be resolved.
Via the Plain Dealer, the Browns have attacked the city's lawsuit as 'legally meritless and fiscally irresponsible.' (That's how the game is played; every civil defendant sees every case filed against it as meritless or frivolous.)
The team also has accused the Browns of attempting to "run out the clock so the Browns are unable to bring the Brook Park stadium to fruition by 2029, and so hold the team, its fans and the community hostage to an inferior alternative and the political whims of city managers."
Even if the Browns manage to circumvent the Modell Law, they still need to strike a deal for public financing for a domed stadium at Brook Park. And they need to make it happen without the issue being put out to vote, because the citizens of very few if any cities, counties, or states would vote at this point to devote taxpayer funds to the construction of stadiums for sports teams with values approaching, if not exceeding, $10 billion.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb isn't happy about the Browns' relocation to Brook Park
Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb isn't happy about the Browns' relocation to Brook Park

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb isn't happy about the Browns' relocation to Brook Park

The Cleveland Browns got what they wanted from Ohio, in the form of $600 million in taxpayer money and a change to the law that would have otherwise kept them from leaving downtown Cleveland for suburban Brook Park. And while the Browns are very happy about the outcome, Cleveland is not. "We are deeply disappointed that the final state budget includes both a $600 million public subsidy for a domed stadium in Brook Park and changes to Ohio's [Art] Modell Law — provisions we strongly opposed and requested be removed," Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb said Tuesday, via "Relocating the Browns will divert economic activity from downtown, create a competing entertainment district, and disrupt the momentum of our lakefront redevelopment." The change to the Art Modell Law allows Ohio teams to move within Ohio. Given that the Ohio legislature created the initial law after the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1996, it seems that there's little room for Cleveland to fight the legislature's decision to change the law. The planned use of unclaimed funds to pay the $600 million to the Browns may become a bigger impediment to the plan. A 2009 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court could provide the basis of a challenge to the plan to tap into the money for the purposes of funding the new stadium. Put simply, "unclaimed funds" are not abandoned. They remain the property of those who have not claimed them. The argument would be that those funds cannot be redistributed by the state for the purposes of building a new football stadium. And so, even as the Browns declare victory and rush forward to make plans for selling season tickets to their new stadium, there's a chance that Ohio will have to scrap the plan to pay the $600 million via unclaimed funds and come up with an alternative approach. The one approach that will never happen is to put the issue to the voters. When the voters have a chance to say whether their money will be used to subsidize the multibillionaire owners of sports teams, the response is usually, "Hell no." As it arguably should be. With the values of NFL teams skyrocketing, why shouldn't NFL teams pay for their own stadiums? The habit of using public funds for such projects feels less like good governance and more like the misadventures of Dennis Moore.

Browns Unveil Historic $2.4 Billion Stadium Plans
Browns Unveil Historic $2.4 Billion Stadium Plans

Yahoo

time12 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Browns Unveil Historic $2.4 Billion Stadium Plans

Browns Unveil Historic $2.4 Billion Stadium Plans originally appeared on Athlon Sports. The Cleveland Browns announced this week the official plans of building a new $2.4 billion domed stadium in Brook Park, Ohio that seats up to 70,000 on Sundays. Advertisement The development will be Ohio's first enclosed stadium, opening up the area to host various events like the Super Bowl, NCAA Final Four, large-scale concerts, and more. It is also a historic advantage coming to AFC North. The Browns' new home will be the first domed stadium in the division, giving Cleveland an upper hand over the Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals and Pittsburgh Steelers when it comes to weather during home games. The Browns social media team released a detailed blueprint diagram of the state-of-the-art mockups of "New Huntington Bank Field". "As Northeast Ohio continues to evolve, the New Huntington Bank Field enclosed stadium will stand as an iconic symbol of the innovation, resiliency, and bold spirit of our region. It will be truly transformational, a first of its kind in the NFL, redefining the architecture of stadiums and fan-centric design. The New Huntington Bank Field enclosed stadium will shape the trajectory of our region for generations to come not just as a stadium, but as a reflection of our community, our economy, and our identity," the Browns wrote on the team website. Advertisement Around the stadium grounds, there will be a full entertainment district that will have programming year-round. "The mixed-used development will create Northeast Ohio's most unique live, work, and play neighborhood and drive a fiscal and economic impact the state and region has never experienced," said the Browns. The site of New Huntington Bank Field in Brook Park is about a 20-minute drive southwest of the current stadium in downtown Cleveland. Mayor Justin Bibb is not exactly thrilled about the team moving out of the city. 'We are deeply disappointed that the final state budget includes both a $600 million public subsidy for a domed stadium in Brook Park and changes to Ohio's [Art] Modell Law — provisions we strongly opposed and requested be removed,' Bibb said Tuesday, via 'Relocating the Browns will divert economic activity from downtown, create a competing entertainment district, and disrupt the momentum of our lakefront redevelopment.' According to NBC, "the change to the Art Modell Law allows Ohio teams to move within Ohio. Given that the Ohio legislature created the initial law after the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1996, it seems that there's little room for Cleveland to fight the legislature's decision to change the law." Advertisement The $600 million of public funding may also hinder the development. Despite the Browns already selling season tickets for the new stadium, which is expected to open in 2029 according to Sportico, "there's a chance that Ohio will have to scrap the plan to pay the $600 million via unclaimed funds and come up with an alternative approach," Pro Football Talk added. Browns owner Jimmy Haslem spoke on the Building Brownstone podcast explaining the vision behind this new stadium and the benefits it will provide to the people of Northeast Ohio. For more information, visit Related: Browns' Myles Garrett 'Trending Toward Best Season' in 2025 This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jul 2, 2025, where it first appeared.

Browns' Stadium Move Hinges on Change to Murky Modell Law
Browns' Stadium Move Hinges on Change to Murky Modell Law

Yahoo

time14 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Browns' Stadium Move Hinges on Change to Murky Modell Law

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 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 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 Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store