Browns' Stadium Taxpayer Money Plan Blocked- For Now... But the battle will continue in 2026!

A judge has blocked the Browns plan to use unclaimed funds from the State of Ohio to fund construction.

An Ohio judge has ruled against an effort that could have steered roughly $600 million in unclaimed funds toward the Cleveland Browns, blocking a key piece of a plan tied to financing the team’s proposed domed stadium in Brook Park.

The decision came in a case brought by attorneys with DannLaw, who challenged the state’s handling of unclaimed funds under Ohio law. The lawsuit argues that the state cannot divert money held in trust for missing or unknown owners and repurpose it for a privately owned sports facility.

The ruling halts the transfer of the funds, at least for now, preventing the Browns from accessing money that state lawmakers had identified as a potential funding source.

What the state sought to do

Under Ohio’s recently enacted operating budget, the state authorized the transfer of billions of dollars in long-dormant unclaimed funds into a new account. State officials said a portion of that money—about $600 million—would be used to support the Browns’ stadium project.

The funds are part of Ohio’s unclaimed property system, which holds assets ranging from forgotten bank accounts to uncashed checks until rightful owners come forward.

What the lawsuit argued

The plaintiffs contended that unclaimed funds remain the private property of Ohio residents and cannot be seized or reassigned simply because they have gone unclaimed for a period of time. They argued that redirecting the money violates constitutional protections and undermines the purpose of the unclaimed-funds system.

Attorneys asked the court to block the transfer while the broader legal challenge proceeds.

The judge agreed, ruling that the funds cannot be redirected under the current framework.

Plaintiffs react

Jeff Crossman, one of the attorneys who brought the case, said the ruling reinforces a central point of the lawsuit—that the dispute is about property rights, not opposition to the Browns or the stadium project itself.

“Mark Dann and I have always been adamant that we're not against the Browns,” Crossman said. “We're not against the stadium construction. We're just against the way they're doing it here — stealing, essentially, from everyday folks in Ohio.”

Crossman said Ohio’s unclaimed-funds system was designed to operate as a custodial program, not a revenue source.

“What we have argued all along is this has been set up as essentially a lost and found for people,” he said. “And now they’re saying, well, after a certain amount of time, too bad you didn’t have notice that your money’s in there—we’re still going to liquidate it and hand it over to a billionaire. That's the fundamental problem here.”

Marc Dann, whose firm filed the case, has said the lawsuit is intended to preserve the rights of Ohioans whose money is being held by the state, regardless of how long it has remained unclaimed.

What’s next

The lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the funding plan remains active. The ruling means the state cannot move forward with transferring the disputed unclaimed funds at this time, casting uncertainty over a major financing component tied to the Browns’ stadium proposal.

Further hearings and appeals are expected as the case continues through the courts.