Cleveland Browns Lawsuit Over the Stadium Move to Brook Park

The legal fight over the Cleveland Browns’ stadium move to Brook Park has played out on two tracks. The first — the lawsuits between the City of Cleveland and the Haslam Sports Group — ended in a $100 million settlement that Cleveland City Council approved on December 1, 2025, with three related suits dismissed days later. The second track is still open: a Franklin County class action challenging Ohio’s plan to fund the new stadium with unclaimed property has been blocked by a court injunction and could stretch for years.

The Move That Started the Fight

The Browns plan to leave their downtown lakefront home for a 178-acre site in Brook Park, roughly 15 miles south of downtown next to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. The proposed domed stadium would seat 67,500 and cost about $2.4 billion, with the Haslam Sports Group committing $1.76 billion plus any overruns, the State of Ohio providing $600 million, and Brook Park contributing $245 million through bonds tied to future tax revenues. Ground was broken on April 30, 2026, with a 2029 opening targeted. The team’s existing lease at Huntington Bank Field runs through February 1, 2029.¹

The City v. Team Lawsuits

Three suits grew out of the move, and all three were dismissed in December 2025 as part of the settlement.

The Browns’ Federal Suit Against Cleveland

The Browns sued first, filing in federal court in October 2024. The team argued Ohio’s Modell Law was unconstitutionally vague — the word “elsewhere” didn’t say whether it covered a move across town or across state lines — and that the statute violated due process and the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution.² Cleveland moved to dismiss, arguing the Browns lacked standing and that the dispute belonged in state court. The case was eventually stayed, and in September 2025 Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost moved for outright dismissal on the ground that a legislative amendment had mooted the claim.³

Cleveland’s State Court Suit Against the Haslams

Cleveland filed its own suit in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in January 2025, assigned to Judge Lauren C. Moore. The city sued the Haslam Sports Group for breach of contract and violation of the Modell Law, pointing to $78 million in capital repairs it had put into the stadium since 2003.⁴ At a June 2025 hearing, Judge Moore denied the team’s motion to dismiss and refused to stay the case, noting that the Browns’ purchase of 176 acres in Brook Park and pursuit of stadium funding meant the issue was “no longer hypothetical.”⁵

Cleveland’s Appeal of the ODOT Height Waiver

In a third action, Cleveland’s Department of Port Control appealed an Ohio Department of Transportation decision granting a construction waiver that would let the Brook Park stadium rise 221 feet, exceeding the 150-foot height limit near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport by 58 feet. ODOT had denied the permit in August 2025, then reversed course on September 18, 2025, after concluding the project “would not alter flight operations” if safety conditions were met. The city argued the waiver was “not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.”⁶

The $100 Million Settlement

On October 13, 2025, Mayor Justin M. Bibb and the Haslam Sports Group announced an agreement resolving the city–team litigation. The deal committed the Haslams to $100 million in payments and obligations spread over roughly a decade.⁷ The financial terms:

A $25 million upfront payment due by December 1, 2025.
Demolition of Huntington Bank Field to a “pad ready state,” estimated at $30 million, with the team covering any overruns.
$5 million per year from 2029 through 2033, totaling $25 million.
At least $2 million per year for 10 years in community benefit payments after the lease ends, totaling at least $20 million.

Both sides agreed to dismiss with prejudice all lawsuits tied to the move, and the city committed to supporting “continuing progress and timely completion” of the Brook Park project at no additional cost. An amended term sheet approved by Council directed $25 million specifically to neighborhood projects and set participation goals for Cleveland-owned and minority-owned demolition contractors. The lease runs through February 1, 2029, with two one-year extension options carrying additional community benefit payments of $1 million and $2 million if construction isn’t finished in time.⁸

Cleveland City Council approved the deal on December 1, 2025, by a vote of 13–2. On December 9, 2025, attorneys for both sides filed to dismiss the three suits covered by the agreement: the city’s Modell Law case, the city’s ODOT height-waiver appeal, and the Browns’ federal constitutional challenge.⁹¹⁰

How the Modell Law Fell Out of the Fight

Ohio Revised Code Section 9.67, enacted in 1996 after Art Modell moved the original Browns to Baltimore, applies to professional sports teams playing most of their home games in a taxpayer-funded facility that receives public financial assistance. The statute bars a team owner from moving the franchise unless the host city agrees or the owner gives at least six months’ written notice and offers the city or local interests the chance to purchase the team.¹¹ It had been invoked only once before, when the Columbus Crew threatened to leave for Austin in 2018, and legal observers at the time described it as functioning more like a right of first refusal than a hard prohibition.¹²

In September 2025, the Ohio General Assembly amended the statute through House Bill 96, effective September 30, 2025. Under the revision, when a lease at a tax-supported facility expires, that expiration itself counts as an agreement permitting the team to play at a different facility, provided the new facility is still in Ohio. A move out of state after a lease expires would still trigger the original notice and purchase requirements.¹¹ Because the Brook Park move stays within Ohio, the amendment removed the team’s legal exposure going forward and was the basis for the attorney general’s mootness argument in the federal case.

The Live Legal Risk: The Unclaimed Funds Lawsuit

The settlement did not end every threat to the project. The biggest remaining vulnerability is a class action challenging how Ohio plans to pay its $600 million share.

As part of the two-year state budget signed by Governor Mike DeWine on July 1, 2025, the legislature authorized the state to claim unclaimed property — dormant bank accounts, uncashed checks, and forgotten deposits — held for at least 10 years. Between $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion was slated for transfer into a new “Ohio Cultural and Sports Facility Performance Grant Fund,” with $600 million earmarked for the Browns’ Brook Park project.¹³

On July 7, 2025, a class action — Bleick et al. v. Maxfield et al., Case No. 25-CV-005715 — was filed in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas by former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann and former State Representative Jeff Crossman of DannLaw. The plaintiffs alleged the scheme was an unconstitutional seizure of private property, with no notice to owners before their assets were taken for what the complaint called a “thoroughly private venture.”¹⁴

On December 23, 2025, a Franklin County judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the transfer just days before the state planned to begin moving money on January 1, 2026. In January 2026, Magistrate Jennifer Hunt kept the restraining order in place pending a preliminary injunction ruling.¹⁵

On March 9, 2026, Magistrate Hunt issued a 39-page ruling granting the preliminary injunction. She found a “substantial likelihood of success” on two constitutional grounds. The transfer likely violated Ohio’s takings clause because the Brook Park project did not qualify as a “public use” — the state would not own or occupy the retail, hotel, and residential components of the development, with only the stadium itself falling under a public authority. The statute also likely violated due process because it did not require that property owners be notified before the state claimed their money.¹⁶¹⁷

The injunction affects not just the $600 million Browns grant but also applications from the Cleveland Guardians, Cleveland Cavaliers, Cincinnati Bengals, and Columbus Clippers. A trial date is set for January 2027, and attorneys on both sides expect appeals to stretch the case for years. Jeff Crossman has suggested the state may need to find alternative funding rather than wait for a final resolution; attorneys for the Haslam Sports Group said they “remain undeterred and on schedule.”¹⁸¹⁷

A parallel federal lawsuit raising similar claims fared worse. A federal judge declined to issue an injunction, and in January 2026 an appeals court upheld that decision, finding the plaintiffs had “not even remotely shown” irreparable harm.¹⁵

The Kucinich Lawsuit

Former Cleveland Mayor Dennis Kucinich filed a separate 2025 lawsuit against both the city and the Browns, alleging the parties had failed to enforce a lease intended to keep the team downtown. He sought a preliminary injunction to halt all construction in Brook Park. In an unusual pairing, the city and the Browns filed a joint opposition, the city arguing the matter was moot after Council approved the settlement and the Browns arguing a halt would harm the team, Brook Park, and the Ohioans the legislature meant to benefit.¹⁹

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Hollie Gallagher dismissed the suit on February 23, 2026, declaring it moot in light of the settlement. The Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissed Kucinich’s appeal on two grounds: as a non-attorney, he could not represent Cleveland’s taxpayers in court, and he lacked individual standing.²⁰ As of June 2026, Kucinich said he planned to take the case to the Ohio Supreme Court.²¹

Where Things Stand

The city–team litigation is over. The Modell Law has been amended out of relevance for an in-state move. Kucinich’s challenge has been dismissed at the trial and appellate levels. The one piece of litigation that could still disrupt construction is the Franklin County unclaimed-funds case, where a preliminary injunction currently blocks the state from moving the $600 million into the stadium grant fund, with trial set for January 2027 and appeals likely beyond that. Construction in Brook Park continues on a target 2029 opening.

1
ESPN. Browns Break Ground on $2.4 Billion Stadium Targeted for 2029
2
Sportico. Cleveland Browns Stadium Lawsuit and Modell Law
3
News 5 Cleveland. Ohio AG Says Browns Lawsuit Against Cleveland Is Irrelevant Now
4
Signal Cleveland. Cleveland’s Lawsuit Against the Browns Puts the Modell Law to the Test
5
News 5 Cleveland. Cuyahoga County Judge Rejects Browns Request To Throw Out Cleveland’s Lawsuit
6
Sports Business Journal. Cleveland Appeals ODOT Decision on Browns Stadium
7
City of Cleveland. Mayor Bibb and Haslam Sports Group Reach Historic $100M Agreement
8
Ideastream. Cleveland Council Approves $100M Browns Exit Deal
9
Cleveland 19 News. Three Lawsuits Dismissed as Term of Cleveland Browns Stadium Deal
10
Bloomberg Law. Cleveland Browns Await Last-Ditch Suits To Stop New Stadium
11
Ohio Legislative Service Commission. Ohio Revised Code Section 9.67
12
News 5 Cleveland. The First Time the Modell Law Was Used
13
Signal Cleveland. Collect Your Unclaimed Funds Before Ohio Gives Them Away
14
ClassAction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Says Raiding of Ohio Unclaimed Property Fund Is Unconstitutional
15
Ohio Capital Journal. Court Extends Temporary Block on Ohio’s Plan To Tap Unclaimed Funds
16
NBC4i. Magistrate Blocks Unclaimed Funds for Browns Stadium Amid Lawsuit
17
News 5 Cleveland. Magistrate Blocks Ohio From Using Unclaimed Funds for Pro Sports Facilities
18
Cleveland.com. Could Ohio’s Unclaimed Funds Lawsuit Delay Browns Stadium Construction Timeline
19
Fox 8 Cleveland. City and Browns Team Up To Fight Lawsuit on Dome Project
20
Fox 8 Cleveland. Former Mayor Plans To Appeal Supreme Court of Ohio Over Browns Move
21
Cleveland 19 News. Kucinich Loses Appeal in Browns Lawsuit, Will Challenge Ruling at Ohio Supreme Court