Lawsuit seeks to stop $600 million in unclaimed funds for Cleveland Browns’ new stadium

Ohio lawmakers approved a plan to use $600 million in unclaimed funds to help fund a new stadium for the Cleveland Browns.

However, critics of the plan have thrown a flag on the play, filing a lawsuit with the hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the measure. If successful, it would leave the Browns with more questions than about who they plan to start at quarterback.

DannLaw, a firm managed by former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, filed a lawsuit, Bleick v. Maxfield, last month in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to halt the use of unclaimed funds for a $2.4 billion private stadium in the Cleveland suburb of Brook Park.

The state has about $3.7 billion in the fund. However, attorneys contend that because the money is private property, the state cannot take it without alerting the owners, without their consent, and without payment.

They accused Haslam Sports Group, the Browns’ owners, of seeking public funding “for their thoroughly private venture” to cover half the cost of a new stadium, WCMH-TV reported. They contend the Buckeye State’s budget runs afoul of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions.

“Constitutional protections for private property were a direct response to governmental abuses Americans experienced during the Revolutionary War era,” attorney Jeffrey A. Crossman said in a statement, WCMH-TV reported.

“Our nation’s founders believed deeply that property rights meant freedom, liberty, and a safeguard against tyrannical government,” Crossman added. “What’s happening now in Ohio and California violates that principle.”

WCMH-TV reported that the lawyers also filed an amicus brief in Peters v. Cohen, a California case challenging the Golden State’s ability to liquidate private property without alerting the owners or reimbursing them.

According to the Dayton Daily News, they want the nation’s top court to use the California case to “establish clear national standards for notice and compensation in unclaimed property programs.”

The effort to apply unclaimed money for public works is also being tested in California.

“The issues presented are of national importance, as states like California and Ohio exploit unclaimed property laws to seize private assets of private property owners across the country and around the world without notice, undermining the constitutional protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” they wrote in the brief, according to reports.

As of now, the Ohio case is set for trial in July 2026.

“This isn’t about football or California or Ohio, it’s about whether our most basic property rights mean anything when the government decides it wants what’s ours,” Dann said in a statement, according to multiple reports.

“If states can take money held in trust for citizens and spend it on private ventures, no one’s property is safe,” Dann added. “We’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to make clear that due process and just compensation are not optional.”

The state House initially included a provision in the state’s biennial budget, which Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law in June, to allocate $600 million for the Browns’ stadium, using state-backed bonds for funding.

However, instead of using bonds, the Senate version changed the funding source to the state’s unclaimed funds.

The Senate plan establishes a new “Sports and Culture Facilities Fund.” The Cleveland Browns would receive a $600 million loan as a “performance grant,” which would be “paid back” via tax revenues collected over 16 years.

The Haslams also own Major League Soccer’s Columbus Crew.

In approving the $600 million, Ohio lawmakers also approved a change to the so-called “Modell Law.” The law was passed after former Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell moved the original Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore.

Under the law, the owners of professional sports teams in Ohio that use facilities relying on taxpayer dollars for upkeep for most of their home games must give at least six months’ notice and allow others to bid on keeping the team in its current location.

With the revisions, teams can relocate anywhere in the state without repercussions.