CLEVELAND, Ohio — City attorneys and the Ohio attorney general’s office on Friday asked a federal judge to toss out the Cleveland Browns’ lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the so-called “Modell Law,” but for different reasons.

The attorney general’s office says the case should be dismissed because the Modell Law was recently changed, while the city argues that the law was never unconstitutional.

Both argued the case belongs in state court, not federal court, and asked U.S. District Judge David Ruiz to dismiss the team’s lawsuit.

Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer reached out to the Browns for comment.

The team sued in federal court late last year, seeking a ruling to strike down the Modell Law as unconstitutional after the team announced plans to move from downtown to a $2.4 billion covered stadium in Brook Park.

The law, passed in 1996 after Art Modell moved the original Browns to Baltimore, was designed to prevent tax-supported professional sports teams from moving elsewhere without first putting the team up for sale.

Bridget Coontz, the chief counsel for the attorney general’s office, wrote that the Browns’ case should be dismissed because the law was repealed and replaced with a version that no longer applies.

“The Browns already attained the result they seek here – elimination of the old version of [the Modell Law] which would have applied to their proposed move,” Coontz wrote. “Having done so, they mooted this case. It should be dismissed.”

Earlier this year, the state legislature enacted a new version of the Modell Law as part of a budget bill that also earmarked $600 million for the new Browns stadium.

The new law, which officially takes effect on Sept. 30, applies only to teams that leave the state. Since the Browns plan to stay in Ohio, the state argues the law no longer applies to the case.

“Rather than recognize their legislative success, the Browns continue to press forward with this case and ask this Court to declare unconstitutional a statute that, as of Sept. 30, 2025, will no longer be in effect,” Coontz wrote.

Justin Herdman, an attorney hired by the city, argued in a separate filing that the Browns’ lawsuit involves state, not federal, issues.

He also wrote that the team filed the federal lawsuit to preempt a lawsuit that the city later filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, which seeks to have a judge enforce the Modell Law and find that the Browns violated their lease.

In that case, the city has argued that the old version of the Modell Law still applies because city taxpayers have poured more than $500 million into the stadium.

“This dispute between the Browns and the city of Cleveland is ripe for resolution — but not in a federal forum,” the city’s attorneys wrote.

The city also argued that the federal case should be dismissed because the Modell Law is neither vague nor discriminatory.

“Far from being ambiguous — let alone so ambiguous as to be unconstitutionally vague — the Modell Law sets out its prescriptions in plain terms,” the filing states.

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.