CLEVELAND, Ohio — Attorneys for the Cleveland Browns say a change in state law should pave the way for the team to move from downtown Cleveland to Brook Park after the 2028 season.
The team’s attorneys, addressing the change to the so-called Modell Law for the first time in court filings, argued that the law applies retroactively, countering an argument made by city attorneys last month.
Browns attorneys noted that the law explicitly states it applies retroactively, and the Ohio attorney general’s office agrees that the Browns are no longer subject to the old law’s provisions
“The legislation is so clear that even the Attorney General has declared that the amendment of [the Modell Law] ‘applies retroactively’ and that [it] ‘no longer applies to the Browns’ proposed move to Brook Park,’” Browns attorney Anthony White wrote.
The Browns made the argument last week in a filing in which they asked Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Lauren Moore to reject the city’s request for the judge to enforce the previous version of the Modell Law and to stop all work on the Browns’ planned $2.4 billion covered stadium in the western suburb.
The team also asked Moore to set dates for future hearings and deadlines for the two sides to exchange evidence.
The Modell Law, enacted after the previous Browns franchise moved to Baltimore in 1996, put restrictions on teams that accepted taxpayer funding from moving from its home cities, including offering the team for sale to city residents.
Earlier this year, the state legislature passed a sweeping budget bill that included changing the Modell Law. The new version of the law allows teams to move within Ohio without restriction. The bill also earmarked $600 million for the new stadium.
Cleveland’s attorneys previously argued that the old Modell Law still applies and that Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam would have to offer the team for sale before moving.
The city has also argued that the Browns violated the terms of its lease. Browns officials have argued that they never broke the lease and that they should be allowed to move once the lease ends after the 2028 season.
Four other court cases involving the Browns’ move remain ongoing, including a federal lawsuit filed by the Browns that asks a judge to declare the old version of the Modell Law unconstitutional because of its vagueness
Another lawsuit challenges the legality of using the state’s unclaimed funds to pay the $600 million for the new stadium.
A third was filed by Dennis Kucinich, the author of the Modell Law, who filed a taxpayer lawsuit against the city and Browns. The city has asked a judge to toss out that suit on procedural and legal grounds.
And on Friday, Cleveland filed a notice in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court that it will appeal an Ohio Department of Transportation decision that gave clearance for the Browns’ plans to build a covered stadium near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
ODOT had initially rejected the plans because of the height of the proposed stadium and Cleveland’s objections to the plans. ODOT reversed course last month and approved the plans.
City attorneys wrote in a one-page filing that they are appealing ODOT’s decision “out of an abundance of caution in order to provide a safe and secure environment for all passengers, visitors and employees.”
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.