(CN) — A disagreement over where the Cleveland Browns should be located has entered federal court after the NFL team filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the city of Cleveland for trying to enforce a state law aimed at keeping the team in its current stadium.
The Browns made a preemptive strike in an ongoing dispute with the city, calling the law unconstitutional and out of line with agreements the owners made when they bought the franchise.
“The Browns do not desire conflict with the city, but have brought this action to resolve their uncertainty and obtain clarity regarding their rights and obligations, and to enable them to move forward for the benefit of the team’s fans and the region,” the team said in its complaint.
City ordinances specifically require the city to enforce the “Modell Law,” according to the city’s spokesperson Tyler Sinclair.
“Beyond that, we must protect our taxpayers’ investment in the team and are committed to doing everything we possibly can to keep them in downtown Cleveland,” Sinclair said. “We are compiling information, researching case law, and evaluating next steps before moving forward with formal litigation action — which will likely occur in the coming weeks.”
The law essentially bars an owner of a professional sports team in Ohio that uses a tax-supported facility and receives state tax dollars from moving the team without the consent of the state or allowing a local residents the option of purchasing the team.
The team currently plays in Huntington Bank Field, an open-air stadium next to Lake Erie in downtown Cleveland, Ohio, which is only used 10 to 12 times per year due to its location, according to the Browns.
The team says it has worked in good faith and tried to be transparent with the city since it decided in 2017 to move the team to a different stadium.
While the city offered financial support for the team to build a stadium along with a mixed-use development at the Burke Lakefront Airport in downtown Cleveland, the team concluded that spending billions on a lakefront stadium would not benefit the team, the city or northeast Ohio.
Instead, the team told the city it intended to focus on building a domed stadium in the city of Brook Park, which neighbors Cleveland.
“The Browns also publicly and privately reiterated their commitment to continue their significant philanthropic efforts in the City of Cleveland after the potential move to Brook Park, which include supporting education, youth sports, volunteerism, economic mobility, reentry and many other community and charitable causes,” the team said.
However, the city has signaled its decision to use the law created and named after a previous owner of the Browns, Art Modell, moved the franchise to Baltimore, Maryland in 1995.
Recently, the Cleveland City Council passed an emergency ordinance directing the city’s lawyer to enforce the “Modell Law” against the Browns.
City Law Director Mark Griffin also told reporters recently that formal litigation would come from the city “in the coming weeks,” the team said in its complaint.
The Browns have asked a federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio for an injunction, stating that not only is the law to keep them from moving unconstitutional, but its word usage is vague and it provides no supporting definitions .
“The statute is so vague and ambiguous that neither the Browns nor any other owner of a professional sports franchise in Ohio has fair notice about what conduct the statute contemplates or forbids,” the team said in its complaint.
Specifically, the team cites the use of “elsewhere,” in the “Modell Law.”
“How far must a team move to be located ‘elsewhere’? Is a new stadium across the street ‘elsewhere’? A different location within the same city? Outside the city but within the same county? Outside Northeast Ohio? Outside the State of Ohio?” the team asked in its complaint.
Also at issue, according to the Browns, is who exactly is considered an individual who resides in the area, which the “Modell Law,” requires to have an option to buy the team before a move can be considered.
“Rather than meet their obligation to draft laws that are ‘clearly defined’ and provide ‘fair notice’ to the public, Ohio lawmakers swayed to the political pressures of the day by enacting a symbolic yet incomprehensible statute that is impermissibly vague and unconstitutional,” the team said.
The Browns were purchased by the new owners, Dee and Jimmy Haslam, in 2012. The team says they have a right to move the team under its franchise agreement with the NFL, as long as other team owners support it — a fact that the team says the “Modell Law” conflicts with.
The team’s lease for its current stadium expires in 2029 and does not automatically renew, though the lease does have a clause that prevents the team from moving prior to the lease ending.
Attorneys for the Browns and the city of Cleveland did not respond to a request for comment before this story was published.