Owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam continue to claim the law is too vague and violates federal precedent. Ohio AG Dave Yost wants to have the case moved to state court.
CLEVELAND — The Browns’ lawsuit against the city of Cleveland seeking to have the so-called “Art Modell Law” overturned should remain in federal court, the team declared Friday in response to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s previous calls to have the case dismissed.
In two separate filings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the Browns outlined their reasoning both as to why a federal judge should rule on the matter as well as why any such ruling should be in their favor. The club is currently seeking a move from downtown Cleveland to the suburb of Brook Park, with the city arguing that cannot happen without owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam either attempting to sell the team to area interests or agreeing to a financial settlement.
“In a transparent attempt to avoid federal court—where the Browns’ constitutional claims belong—the City argues that the Browns are merely asking for an advisory opinion as to what the Modell Law means. Not so. The Browns seek a concrete, binding declaration that the Modell Law is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable under federal law,” the lawsuit states.
The city filed its own lawsuit against the Browns last month in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, with Yost (acting on the city’s behalf) then moving to have the federal case thrown out in favor of the state conflict. The Browns pushed back on those claims Friday, arguing that a federal judge should have jurisdiction over the issues at hand.
“Unfortunately for Cleveland citizens and the region, rather than transcend local politics and work toward a win-win solution, the City has chosen to expend resources on unnecessary lawsuits and to focus exclusively on enforcing the unconstitutional and inapplicable Modell Law,” lawyers for the team wrote in their response against Yost. “Like its public posturing on these critical stadium and economic development issues, the City’s motion to dismiss does not withstand scrutiny. Its arguments rest on tortured readings of cases that, on closer inspection, do not stand for the propositions cited. The City’s motion should be denied.”
According to the Browns, the lawsuit presents three “straightforward federal claims” for U.S. District Court Judge David Ruiz to resolve, specifically if the Modell Law “run(s) afoul of the United States Constitution where it:
- is unconstitutionally vague — leaving the Browns and the general public to guess as to which individuals are to have a six-month opportunity to purchase the team, what that opportunity involves, and what facts trigger that six-month period of time;
- violates the Contract Clause — interfering with contractual arrangements, such as the Browns’ Lease for Huntington Bank Field and the Franchise Commitment Agreement with the NFL, that predate passage of the Modell Law, and makes no exceptions for instances where it may interfere with these pre-existing contractual rights and obligations; and
- violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminates against out-of-state potential buyers in favor of those in Ohio and inflicts substantial harm?”
In their second filing, the Browns made their arguments as to why the Modell law does, in fact, violate all three of these provisions. The team claims the statute presents terms that “are so unclear that a person of ordinary intelligence is not provided fair notice about what conduct is forbidden by the statute or how to comply with it.” Moreover, the club also asserts that the law improperly favors local potential buyers over others and infringes on existing lease agreements, some of which date back to before the law was enacted.
The Modell Law was enacted on June 20, 1996, months after Art Modell moved the original Browns to Baltimore. In response to heavy local and national criticism for the way the relocation went down, the NFL worked quickly to bring a new team to Cleveland that would carry the Browns’ name and history, which resulted in the league reaching a “Franchise Commitment Agreement” with the city.
According to the Haslam Sports Group, that FCA as well as the stadium lease for what is now Huntington Bank Field went into effect on April 26, 1996, less than two months before the Modell Law entered the Ohio Revised Code. Though the eventual expansion team did not receive full approval until 1998, the Browns argue the Modell Law “substantially impairs” both the existing FCA and the lease, which would be unconstitutional.
The lease at Huntington Bank Field on the lakefront will expire after the 2028 season, when the Browns hope to open a new $2.4 billion domed facility in Brook Park. Since no agreement exists beyond then, the Haslams argue it should allow them to go wherever they please.
“The Browns intend to perform all of their obligations under the HBF (Huntington Bank Field) Lease, including the requirement to play all home games at HBF until they surrender the premises to the City when the HBF Lease expires in 2029,” the filing declared.
The entire Modell Law statute reads as follows:
“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:
- Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;
- 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.”
In his earlier attempt to have the federal case dismissed, Yost agreed with the city’s interpretation that the Modell Law applies just the same whether a team is moving to a completely different state or merely one town over, although the Browns on Friday attempted to argue their move could suffice since Brook Park is in the same “political subdivision” that is Cuyahoga County. The attorney general also offered a a “final but important point: no one forced the Browns to accept taxpayer money,” something the franchise has done on multiple occasions both before and after the Haslams became owners in 2012.
“If the Browns can navigate the seemingly byzantine framework of NFL Team interdependency, complex stadium leases and NFL rules to become a part of the NFL … they can certainly be expected to read, understand (or at a minimum inquire about) a three-paragraph Ohio law along the way,” Yost wrote in January of the Browns’ “vagueness” claims.
Attorney Justin Herdman, representing the city, also argued that the city’s state lawsuit “must take precedence.”
“Although the Browns attempt to enmesh this Court in the merits — on the interpretation of state law and, depending on that interpretation, on a series of constitutional challenges to the Modell Law — that puts the cart before the horse,” Herdman said. “This Court must first determine whether it even has jurisdiction to proceed. It does not.”
3News has reached out to the city of Cleveland for comment. This past Thursday, the Haslam Sports Group unveiled its plan to finance the would-be Brook Park stadium, which would require roughly $1.2 billion in public funds (amounting to half of the entire cost).
“Particularly if the County participates in the project and wraps the Brook Park revenue sources, the significant excess local tax revenues generated by the project will be more than sufficient to fund debt service on the bonds, capital repairs (projected to be approximately $400 million in future dollars over the life of the 30 year lease) and other public uses,” the owners wrote.
Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne, who has been steadfastly against the Browns leaving downtown Cleveland, threw more cold water on the funding proposal Thursday.
“Today’s press conference was a Hail Mary that they threw that none of us in the public sector, the state included, are catching,” he said. “There are two things that were thrown out there today, numbers that were inflated and vehicles that haven’t been vetted, and so that’s why I say they what they really threw out today was a Hail Mary.”
No timetable has been released for when Ruiz could rule on the Browns and Yost’s claims.