Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb emailed a letter to Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam on Monday threatening legal action via Ohio Revised Code 9.67—more popularly known as the “Art Modell law”—unless the Browns provide “the City or others with the opportunity to purchase the team, as required by law.”

Bibb wrote the Browns have until Jan. 9 to respond or face unspecified legal action. One potential action would be Cleveland petitioning a court for an injunction to stop the NFL franchise from taking relocation-related steps. The Browns could contest that petition and argue the city lacks the legal justification for an injunction.

The mayor’s letter is the latest development in an escalating feud pitting Cleveland and the publicly owned Huntington Bank Field (HBF) against the Browns, which are exploring a stadium project in Brook Park, a city about 15 miles from Cleveland. The Browns are bound by a lease agreement to play at HBF until after the 2028 season but could move thereafter.

In October, the Browns sued Cleveland in an Ohio federal court. The lawsuit contends that the Modell Law violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and that, even if the law is found to comply with the Constitution, the Browns have followed it. The case is before U.S. District Judge David A. Ruiz.

The Modell Law came into force after then-Browns owner Art Modell relocated the franchise to Baltimore in 1995. Ohio, spurned by Modell, wanted to make it more difficult for other pro sports owners to relocate a team from the Buckeye State. The law forbids Ohio-based pro teams that use a “tax-supported facility for most of its home games” and that “receive financial assistance” from playing home games “elsewhere.”

The word “elsewhere” is unclarified as to whether it could refer to an intrastate move or is intended to only cover out-of-state relocations. 

Should a team wish to move, the Modell Law says it must provide the government with six months’ notice and offer the team for sale to the city or local buyers. Bibb’s letter complains the Browns haven’t provided the city or others with the opportunity to buy the franchise. He demands that if the Browns “intend to begin the six-month window during which the team must be offered for purchase,” the team must provide dates to meet scheduling benchmarks. 

For instance, Bibb says he needs “a day and time” to send over city representatives so they can “begin inspection and evaluation of the Browns’ records.”

Whether the Modell Law could actually block the Browns from relocating to Brook Park is an untested legal concept. Although the law was cited in court filings when the Columbus Crew planned to move to Austin, Texas, seven years ago, that legal dispute was resolved via settlement. It also concerned an out-of-state relocation, whereas the Browns seek a comparatively local move.

As Sportico detailed in October, the Browns contend the law is impermissibly vague because it: (1) doesn’t clarify how far a team must move for it to apply; (2) doesn’t explain what triggers six months’ advance notice; (3) violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from excessively interfering with other states’ economies, by giving Ohio residents “preferential treatment” to buy the team; (4) violates the Constitution’s Contract Clause by impairing the Browns and NFL’s contractual obligations to one another concerning league approval of franchise relocation; and (5) violates the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause by discriminating against citizens of other states (at least those who want to buy an NFL team). 

Peter John-Baptiste, the chief communications officer of Haslam Sports Group, the Browns’ parent company, told Sportico in a statement that “we received and are reviewing the correspondence from Mayor Bibb.” He added, “As we stated months ago when we filed our lawsuit seeking clarity on the ‘Modell Law,’ the statute and the City’s actions create uncertainty and do not serve the interest of Greater Cleveland.” 

John-Baptiste also mentioned the team intends to meet all lease obligations while exploring ways to address longer-term stadium issues.

“As the City knows, after the 2028 season, we will have fulfilled our lease obligations at the current stadium. We are determined to create a project to solve our long-term stadium planning by building a new enclosed Huntington Bank Field and adjacent mix-used development, resulting in a substantial increase in premier large-scale events and economic activity for our region that will generate significant revenue for the City, County, and State. We intend to respond directly in due course to Mayor Bibb’s letter and have no further comment at this time.”