The City of Cleveland on Monday made its latest attempt to sack the Cleveland Browns’ plan to relocate from Cleveland’s Huntington Bank Field to a planned facility 12 miles away in Brook Park, Ohio. In a brief filed in federal court, Cleveland argues the Browns’ federal lawsuit against the city should be dismissed while its state lawsuit against the team should continue.
The two-front legal battle began when the Browns sued Cleveland last October. The Browns maintain the Art Modell Law (Ohio Revised Code 9.67) violates the U.S. Constitution. Among alleged problems with the Modell Law is that it arguably interferes with the Browns’ contractual relationship with the NFL. It also raises implementation questions, including how a team must comply with required procedures, how operative words ought to be defined and whether the law even governs an intracounty move. Last month, Cleveland sued the Browns in a Cuyahoga County (Ohio) trial court for allegedly violating the Modell Law and breach of contract.
In Monday’s filing, which was drafted by Justin E. Herdman and other Jones Day attorneys and by Cleveland law director Mark D. Griffin, the city insists the federal court lacks jurisdiction and that the Browns lack standing.
Among Cleveland’s arguments are that the Browns’ lawsuit relies on the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, which authorizes federal courts to issue declarations but, the city maintains, does not itself confer jurisdiction. Cleveland also asserts the Browns haven’t established jurisdiction for their claims based on the U.S. Constitution. To that end, Cleveland maintains the Browns failed to allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a federal statute which provides a private right of action for constitutional lawsuits against the government. As the city sees it, without Section 1983 violation, the court lacks jurisdiction.
Cleveland also portrays the Browns as carelessly suggesting the Modell Law does not apply to the controversy. In that scenario, Cleveland asserts, the Browns would lack an injury a court could remedy.
Cleveland insists the Browns’ arguments fail on the merits. The Browns have challenged the Modell Law—which Ohio enacted in 1996 after the franchise moved from Cleveland to Baltimore, Md.—relying on the word “elsewhere” to discuss when it applies to teams’ proposed relocations. The Browns assert that word is too vague and imprecise, since “elsewhere” might mean only an interstate move—like the Browns moving to Baltimore in the 1990s—or also intrastate and even intracounty moves (Cleveland and Brook Park are both in Cuyahoga County).
“That provision,” Cleveland insists, “is not even ambiguous, much less unconstitutionally vague.” Cleveland says “elsewhere” should be interpreted literally. That means it would apply even if the Browns moved from HBF to another stadium in Cleveland.
A Browns spokesperson declined to comment on Cleveland’s court filing.
As Sportico has detailed, the Browns believe their legal arguments will ultimately prevail. The team has identified a number of arguable problems with the Modell Law that could convince the courts to side with the team. The Browns also stress that Cleveland officials, including Mayor Justin Bibb, have threatened to use the Modell Law against the team and thus, arguably, created the legal controversy that is before the courts.
The Browns are under lease to play at HBF through the 2028 NFL season and it appears the team is willing to meet that obligation. After the 2028 season, however, the Browns have no contractual obligation to play games at HBF. A court might be reluctant to force the team to play games in a facility in which it has no contractual obligation. U.S. District Judge David A. Ruiz will weigh the dueling arguments and could order oral arguments.
