It’s safe to assume that when then-Ohio Gov. George Voinovich signed the so-called “Art Modell Law ” in 1996, the possibility of the legislation being used against the Cleveland Browns was n’t on anyone’s head. Yet the City of Cleveland sued the Browns last week in a Cuyahoga County ( Ohio ) trial court for allegedly violating the Modell Law and breach of contract. Cleveland also motioned to reject the Browns ’ federal lawsuit against the city over the Modell Law. As two complaints concerning the same set of issues play out in various courts, the legal fight springs on a regulation that might be illegal. It is also a laws being used in a pretty unique circumstances from what motivated its passing. Unlike in 1995, when the Browns moved hundreds of miles across condition lines to become the Baltimore Ravens, this debate is about a probable move within the same state. The Modell Law, as captured in Ohio Revised Code 9. 67, was a direct reaction to the Brown moving to Baltimore—a exit that outraged not merely Browns fans but also Ohio lawmakers given the hundreds of millions of income dollars invested in the locally owned, use Cleveland Stadium. The Browns relocated in 1995 despite Cleveland suing the group, which was then owned by Art Modell. The dispute ended with the Bengals becoming the Ravens and Modell agreeing to gain the Browns ’ intellectual property and other elements of the team’s personality, including its history and information. When the new Browns began play in the 1999 NFL season, they were treated as a continuation of the old Browns. The Modell Law imposes a series of restraints on Ohio professional sports teams in the event they seek to relocate. It applies to teams that use a “tax-supported facility for most of its home games” and that “receive financial assistance ” from playing home games “elsewhere. ” The law features several procedural requirements, such as obliging the team to provide six months ’ notice to the government. The team must also be made available for sale to the city and local buyers. The Browns play in the publicly owned Huntington Bank Field ( HBF ) in Cleveland. The team has a lease to play there through the 2028 NFL season. The Browns are pushing for a stadium project in Brook Park, Ohio, a fellow Cuyahoga County city that is located about 15 miles from Cleveland. The Brook Park stadium would host as many as 70 major events a year, a major increase from the number of major events hosted at HBF. The Browns ’ lawsuit, which was filed last October, seeks a judicial declaration the Modell Law violates the U. S. Constitution or, alternatively, the team has complied with the law. The Browns argue the law is too vague to pass Constitutional muster. For instance, the law uses the word “elsewhere ” to describe a planned move without explaining whether “elsewhere ” means a move across state lines—a plausible reading given that the law was passed in response to the Browns moving to Maryland—or whether a move within the same state or even same county could count. The Browns insist this ambiguity undermines due process since the law arguably does n’t notify teams of the circumstances where it applies. Similarly, while teams must give six months ’ notice, the law does n’t explain what counts as starting the notice clock ( e. g. , a team statement; presentation renderings; applying for permits, purchasing of building supplies; actual construction etc. ) The Browns also assert Modell Law violates the Contract Clause as found in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. The clause prohibits states from passing laws that “impair the obligation of contracts. ” The Browns are in contract with the NFL and can relocate under NFL rules with the NFL’s blessing. If the Browns can’t relocate because of the Modell law or are forced to sell to the city or local buyers, the Modell law arguably undermines the Browns ’ contract with the NFL. But Cleveland insists the Browns ’ arguments fall short. In its lawsuit, the city maintains that owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam “are well aware of the Modell Law and its requirements” since the law played a role in the Haslams acquiring the Columbus Crew soccer team seven years ago. At the time, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, who is now governor, sued Major League Soccer and the Crew for violating the Modell Law over a planned move to Austin, Texas. While the litigation was resolved via settlement, and thus the constitutionality of the Modell Law was n’t tested, the lawsuit facilitated the team’s sale and kept the Crew in Columbus. The city insists the Modell Law establishes clear requirements that the Browns must follow. Cleveland contends the Browns “have no intention ” to follow the law and could breach “their obligations under a long-held lease contract with the City. ” Cleveland also maintains the Browns ’ federal lawsuit should be dismissed. It asserts the team lacks Article III standing under the U. S. Constitution. Article III ensures that persons who go to court have an actual, concrete injury that a court can remedy through an injunction or monetary damages. Cleveland maintains the Browns lack such an injury and are seeking an “advisory opinion ” from a judge about a law. Expect the Browns in a forthcoming legal filing to dispute that depiction. The Browns could assert their lawsuit reflects statements from Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and other government officials stating the Modell Law would block a move, a development that would cause a concrete injury to the team. Further, Cleveland argues that even if the federal court has jurisdiction, the case belongs in state court because the parties are from Ohio and the law at issue is in Ohio. However, the Browns might assert that claims regarding compliance with the U. S. Constitution are federal in nature and would be better determined in federal court. Both cases are active and could remain on their dockets for a while. It’s also possible the Browns and Cleveland negotiate a resolution.