Full Breakdown
Legal Setback for Cleveland Browns Stadium Funding
3/10/2026, 3:14:09 AM
Court Blocks Use of Unclaimed Funds for Stadium Construction
A Franklin County magistrate has issued a preliminary injunction halting the state of Ohio from utilizing approximately $600 million in unclaimed funds to finance the construction of a new domed stadium for the Cleveland Browns in Brook Park. This ruling comes amid a class-action lawsuit filed by former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann and former state representative Jeffrey Crossman, representing Ohio residents whose unclaimed funds are being held by the state. The plaintiffs argue that the state’s plan violates constitutional protections against the taking of private property without due process.
The lawsuit challenges provisions in Ohio's two-year, $60 billion budget that diverted over $1 billion from the state’s Unclaimed Funds Account to create the Ohio Cultural and Sports Facility Performance Grant Fund. This fund was established to support various sports facilities, with the Browns stadium earmarked as its first major project. The magistrate, Jennifer Hunt, found that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of prevailing in their claims, particularly regarding the constitutionality of the fund's intended use.
Background on Unclaimed Funds Legislation
As part of the biennial budget process, Ohio lawmakers approved a plan to create a "Sports and Culture Facilities Fund" using a pool of unclaimed taxpayer money, estimated at $3.7 billion. The legislation allows the state to claim funds that have remained unclaimed for at least ten years, establishing a grace period for individuals to file claims until January 1, 2036. However, the plaintiffs argue that the state’s actions constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property, as the funds are not being used for a public purpose as required by state law.
Implications of the Ruling
The injunction not only affects the Browns but also impacts other Ohio sports teams that were seeking funding from the unclaimed funds. The state had begun accepting grant applications earlier this year, but the ongoing litigation has paused the review process. The ruling signifies a significant legal hurdle for the Browns, whose new stadium is projected to cost $2.4 billion and is scheduled to open in 2029.
Official Statements & Responses
In response to the ruling, a spokesperson for the Haslam Sports Group, which owns the Browns, expressed confidence in the project, stating, "We understood this temporary outcome was a possibility, but remain undeterred and on schedule in delivering this transformative stadium and economic development project for our region and the state as the legal process continues to play out." Meanwhile, attorneys for the state have indicated they may object to the magistrate's decision, and a judge will ultimately decide whether to uphold or modify the injunction.
Criticism & Opposition
Critics of the funding plan, including Dann and Crossman, emphasize that the case is fundamentally about protecting private property rights rather than opposing stadium development. Crossman stated, "We're not against stadium construction — we're just anti-theft, and that's exactly what this is. It's theft of people's private property." Dann echoed this sentiment, asserting that there are constitutional ways to fund the stadium without infringing on citizens' rights.
What's Next
The legal proceedings will continue as the state prepares to respond to the injunction. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how unclaimed funds are utilized in Ohio and may influence future funding strategies for public projects.
