Former Cleveland Mayor Dennis Kucinich Seeks Court Order to Pause Browns’ Planned Move to Brook Park

New lawsuit adds pressure as stadium financing and “Modell Law” fights continue

Former Cleveland Mayor Dennis Kucinich has asked an Ohio judge to intervene and temporarily halt steps toward the Cleveland Browns’ planned relocation from the city’s lakefront to a proposed domed stadium in Brook Park. The request, framed as an effort to preserve the status quo while broader legal questions are resolved, escalates a multi-front dispute that has been building since the team publicly shifted its long-term stadium focus away from downtown Cleveland.

Kucinich’s filing is tied to Ohio’s “Modell Law,” a state statute enacted after the Browns’ 1995 departure for Baltimore and designed to protect communities when professional teams that play in publicly supported facilities seek to leave. The law generally requires that a team either reach an agreement with its host city or provide advance notice and an opportunity for local interests to purchase the franchise.

What the Browns and the city have argued so far

The planned move would take the Browns from Huntington Bank Field to a new indoor venue in Brook Park after the current lakefront lease ends following the 2028 NFL season. Team ownership has said it intends to satisfy its lease obligations before relocating.

Cleveland’s municipal government previously sued in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to enforce the Modell Law, asserting that the Browns’ relocation plans conflict with statutory requirements and with contractual arrangements tied to public investment in the lakefront stadium and surrounding infrastructure. The Browns, in turn, filed litigation seeking rulings that would limit or negate the Modell Law’s application to their project and have pushed for parts of the dispute to be addressed in federal court, arguing parallel state and federal cases could create conflicting outcomes.

Financing disputes add another layer

Separate litigation has challenged elements of Ohio’s stadium-funding framework after lawmakers created a grant fund that directs hundreds of millions of dollars toward the Browns’ stadium project. Another lawsuit has targeted the state’s proposed use of unclaimed-funds mechanisms as part of broader financing, contending it violates constitutional protections. Federal court proceedings on that track have allowed the case to continue while declining to immediately block transfers outright, leaving key funding questions unresolved.

• State-court litigation centers on the Modell Law and local contractual obligations.
• Federal litigation focuses on constitutional and jurisdictional issues tied to funding and statutory interpretation.
• The stadium timeline remains anchored to the end of the 2028 season lease term and a targeted opening around the 2029 season.

At stake is whether Cleveland can legally compel continued play at the lakefront stadium or secure remedies before any relocation occurs.

The court’s next procedural decisions—particularly on whether to pause actions while jurisdiction and statutory questions are addressed—could shape how quickly the stadium plan can advance and what leverage Cleveland retains as redevelopment plans for the lakefront and surrounding infrastructure move forward.