Browns sue to challenge Cleveland’s use of ‘Modell Law’ to keep team in city
(The Center Square) – The Cleveland Browns have filed a lawsuit challenging what is referred to as the Art Modell Law, which puts restrictions on the team’s ability to move.
The lawsuit came after the Cleveland City Council decided it would attempt to use the law, enacted in June 1996.
The law prevents a professional sports team playing in a taxpayer-supported facility from moving unless it comes to an agreement with Cleveland or it give six months’ notice and allows either the city or private individuals the right to purchase the team to keep it in Cleveland.
The Browns have announced they plan to move to a new stadium in suburb Brook Park, an estimated $2.4 billion stadium that the team is asking for $1.2 billion from the state of Ohio and county to build.
The Browns’ lawsuit challenges The Art Modell Law as unconstitutional. Modell moved the team from Cleveland to Baltimore in 1995 but the team name and colors remained in Cleveland while the new team became the Ravens.
The city council approved an ordinance in May to use the law to keep the Browns in Cleveland. City Law Director Mark Griffin has made it clear to reporters this week that the law will now be used, the Browns wrote.
The lawsuit claims the Modell Law does not give specifics but includes vague terms such as “opportunity to purchase” which are not clearly defined.
“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,” Dave Jenkins, CEO of the Haslam Sports Group, said in a statement. “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.”
