CLEVELAND — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is seeking to intervene in the federal lawsuit between the Cleveland Browns and the city over the constitutionality of a state law as the team seeks to leave downtown and relocate to a soon-to-be-built domed stadium in Brook Park.
Yost's filing comes a week after the Browns filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court asking that the Modell Law, passed in 1996 and named for former Browns owner Art Modell, who moved the team from Cleveland to Baltimore, be declared either unconstitutional or not applicable to the Browns' plans to relocate their stadium to Brook Park.
The law states the following:
"No owner of a professional sports team that uses a tax-supported facility for most of its home games and receives financial assistance from the state or a political subdivision thereof shall cease playing most of its home games at the facility and begin playing most of its home games elsewhere unless the owner either:
- (A) Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;
- (B) Gives the political subdivision in which the facility is located not less than six months' advance notice of the owner's intention to cease playing most of its home games at the facility and, during the six months after such notice, gives the political subdivision or any individual or group of individuals who reside in the area the opportunity to purchase the team."
The provision of the law at issue, according to 3News legal analyst Stephanie Haney, is the requirement for the Browns owners to entertain offers to buy the team from investors who would keep the team in downtown Cleveland, before they can carry out their plan to move the team to Brook Park.
WHAT YOST SAYS
In making his argument to intervene, Yost points out that Huntington Bank Field, the Browns' current home stadium, is "a tax-supported facility to which Ohio Rev. Code §9.67 (the Modell Law) applies. This means that before the Browns can stop playing there, the Team must comply with certain statutory requirements."
Yost says that "while the contours of those requirements are not at issue" in his motion to intervene, they do "require that a professional sports team which reaps the benefits of a tax-supported facility take certain steps before it can cut and run. The Ohio General Assembly passed Ohio Rev. Code §9.67 to protect public money. This lawsuit seeks to strike down those protections."
In addition, Yost states that the Browns' arguments that the Modell Law is "unconstitutionally vague" and violates several articles of the U.S. Constitution are "wrong." However, because the Browns only named the city of Cleveland as a defendant in the lawsuit, Yost says the state of Ohio would have no ability to defend the law.
"This motion should be granted," Yost added in the filing, which you can read below.
THE CITY'S VIEW
Prior to the Haslams filing the lawsuit, the city of Cleveland told 3News that it would be "moving forward" in taking legal action to try to prevent the Browns from leaving their downtown home to play in Brook Park.
"We're gonna move forward because that's the law," Cleveland Law Director Mark Griffin told Haney in an interview. "We're gonna move forward because that is what the Cleveland city ordinances require us to do."
So how would that process work? Griffin pointed to a previous situation involving the Columbus Crew soccer team, where the previous owners signaled their intent to move that team to Texas. That case ending up settling out of court, and the team remains in Columbus to this day.
"In the Columbus Crew example, then-Attorney General (Mike) DeWine started with an initial letter reminding the teams that they have an obligation to follow [Ohio] Revised Code 9.67. About three months later, he followed up with a lawsuit asking the court to compel compliance with the law," Griffin explained. "So here in Cleveland, we would similarly move forward with a letter and then, if there is not compliance with the law, we'd ask a court to intervene."
With the Crew, the previous owners were trying to move the team to another state, and they wanted to do it in the middle of their stadium lease. The Haslams want to move the Browns to a different suburb within Greater Cleveland, and they don't plan to do it until their current stadium lease is up at the end of 2028.
The city of Cleveland doesn't seem to think that matters, but in a conversation last week with Haney, Yost did.
"We don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, much less 4 1/2 years from now," Yost told Haney. "I was in touch with the Browns organization today, seeking clarification. 'What's going on? What is your timeline?' And I'm convinced this is not ripe for any action. We're monitoring, we're watching it, we're aware what's going on, but everybody needs to take a deep breath. I think there's probably quite a bit of posturing going on with regards to this negotiation."
While the city of Cleveland was named as the defendant in the case, the suit also requested that it be served to Yost.
THE HASLAM SPORTS GROUP'S STANCE
Along with the lawsuit, the Haslam Sports Group (owners of the Browns) released the below statement last week:
"Throughout our future stadium planning process, we have always acted transparently and in good faith with the City of Cleveland and are disappointed in the City’s latest course of action stating its intent to bring litigation regarding the 'Modell Law'. These statements and similar actions create uncertainty and do not serve the interests of Greater Cleveland. Therefore, today we have filed a lawsuit seeking clarity on this vague and unclear law.
As we have consistently conveyed, the intent of our future stadium planning has always been to work in collaboration with our local leaders to find the optimal long-term stadium solution that will benefit our fans while positively impacting our region. Our lease expires at the end of the 2028 season, and we are working hard to develop a long-term solution upon completion of our current agreement.
Today’s action for declaratory judgment was filed to take this matter out of the political domain and ensure we can move this transformative project forward to make a new domed Huntington Bank Field in Brook Park a reality. We have no interest in any contentious legal battle but are determined to create a project that will add to Greater Cleveland by building a dome stadium and adjacent mix-used development, a $3-3.5B project, that will include approximately $2B in private investment. This project will bring premier events and economic activity that will generate significant revenue for the City, County and State. As this is now an ongoing legal matter, we will have no further comments. We look forward to a positive resolution.
