On October 24, 2024, the Cleveland Browns filed a preemptive lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, seeking a declaratory judgment to strike down Ohio’s “Modell Law” as unconstitutional. Such a declaration may permit the Browns to move from its current home in Downtown Cleveland to a new stadium in Brook Park, a Cleveland suburb about 15 miles south of downtown.
Background on the Modell Law
The Modell Law (R.C. § 9.67) was enacted in 1996 and serves to protect Ohio cities from losing professional sports teams that utilize tax-supported facilities. According to this law, any sports owner receiving public funding for their venue must obtain permission from the city or provide a six-month notice before relocating. The legislation takes its name from former Browns’ owner Art Modell, who infamously moved the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore after the 1995 NFL season. Modell did so after the Browns were unable to secure a new stadium deal in Cleveland.
The Team and City’s Tug of War
On May 6, 2024, the Cleveland City Council passed Emergency Ordinance 391-2024 authorizing and directing the City’s Director of Law to enforce the provisions of the Modell Law. In mid-October, the City’s Law Director made public comments noting the City’s intent to enforce the Modell Law as a potential way to keep the Browns in Downtown Cleveland and prevent a move to outside the City.
The City of Cleveland’s comments came after the Browns’ October 17, 2024 announcement that stated their intent to focus efforts on plans to construct a new domed stadium in Brook Park. On October 24, 2024, prior to the City taking legal action against the team and after the City of Cleveland’s public comments, the Browns filed a lawsuit against the City in the Northern District of Ohio.
The Complaint
The lawsuit seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the Modell Law. Specifically, the Browns allege that the Modell Law violates the: (i) Dormant Commerce Clause; (ii) Contract Clause; (iii) Privileges and Immunities Clause; and (iv) Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit also asks the Court to determine that if the Modell Law is constitutional, the Browns have followed the provisions and otherwise complied with the Modell Law.
Perhaps the most compelling argument made by the lawsuit is that the Modell Law is vague and ambiguous, which violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit alleges that the Due Process Clause is violated because the Modell Law does not provide enough details, such as when the Modell Law would be triggered, i.e. how far away must a team move for it to apply, and what “six months’ advance notice” of an intention to move details.
The Browns’ claims under the Dormant Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause are similar, although derived from different provisions under the United States Constitution. In essence, the lawsuit alleges that the Modell Law provides preferential treatment to Clevelanders and Ohioans. Particularly, the Dormant Commerce Clause has been used to prevent states from enacting laws that impact interstate commerce—a function reserved to the federal legislature, but here, the lawsuit claims that Ohioans may receive preferential treatment or special rights because the Modell Law requires that a professional sports team, which is seeking to move outside the geographical region that provided the public funding, must first put the team up for sale to be purchased by Ohioans. Under the Privileges and Immunities claim, the lawsuit alleges that because Ohio residents have a chance to purchase the team, if put up for sale, before residents of other states, then the Art Modell law discriminates against citizens of other states.
Under the Contract Clause of the Constitution, states cannot pass laws impairing obligations of contracts. Here, the lawsuit alleges that the Modell Law impairs the Browns’ rights under its agreement with the NFL, which allows NFL teams to relocate after a league vote.
The Browns also seek a declaration that the Modell Law is unconstitutional as applied to the Browns. Alternatively, the team seeks a judgment that the Browns’ actions do not trigger or violate the Modell Law.
Ohio’s Motion to Intervene
On October 31, 2024, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a Motion to Intervene in the lawsuit. The Motion sets forth bases in which federal law permits the State to intervene in the lawsuit. The State’s central argument is that 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) allows the State to defend the constitutionality of a statute. The Motion provides that the State intends to defend the Modell Law.
Possible Outcomes of the Lawsuit
The Modell Law was raised in a 2018 lawsuit filed by then-Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and the City of Columbus against the former owners of the Columbus Crew. There, the Crew sought to relocate to Austin, Texas, but that lawsuit was resolved before a final determination on the Modell Law was reached. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas—which is a state court unlike the federal court presiding over the current suit—denied an initial motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Columbus Crew and Major League Soccer. Ultimately, the Crew lawsuit was resolved with the current owners of the Browns, the Haslams, purchasing the Crew and a separate MLS expansion team was created in Austin, Texas.
Unlike the Crew lawsuit, the Browns are seeking to move approximately 15 miles south in 2028, when the lease for the current Downtown Cleveland stadium is completed. The preemptive nature of the lawsuit could mean many different things, but one important factor is that federal court may be more friendly to the Browns than a state court forum, which may favor the City and State.
The lawsuit may have far-reaching implications not just for Cleveland or Ohio, but other small market sports towns keen on holding on to their professional sports teams faced with publicly funding stadiums. The City and State could ultimately decide that the Modell Law is not meant to apply here and then refrain from pursuing further action in order for the Modell Law to stay on the books for an instance in the future, like the Crew, where a professional team seeks to move out of state. The Browns’ lawsuit could also proceed to a determination on the merits or the federal court could decide that the lawsuit is not ripe because, among other things, the current lease has not expired.
To discuss further, please reach out to KJK attorneys Kyle Stroup (KDS@kjk.com) or TJ Hunt (TJH@kjk.com).