Ot: Mgolawyer perspective on #saveTheCrew lawsuit
I posted last night before falling asleep and had no time to check until tonight. I appreciate the commentary from those with insights into the dormant commerce clause.
I also take the criticism of the quality of the post to heart. This is too little too later, but trying to show good faith.
- The Crew are an original member of the MLS, and have an avid fan base.
- Neighbors, who are avid fans, have told me for years that moving the team was Precourt's (the new crew owner) intention from the day he purchased the crew. The theory is that it was cheaper to buy and move the crew than to pay the MLS expansion fee. This appears to be supported by contract language specifically enabling him to move to Austin.
- This lawsuit appears to be the last Hail Mary to try and preserve the team here in Columbus. The filing of the lawsuit has been on most news reports, but with little substantive evidence of whether it is viable.
I gather from the posts below it is unlikely to work, and while disappointing, it is not unexpected. I hope the courts decide to honor the intention of the law, but understand better why they likely will not.
Bet they could find a choir of sports fan lawyers in Cleveland, Baltimore, and Seattle who would do this work pro bono.
Certainly one of the smartest comments in the thread. You might actually have what it takes to go to law school and probably make your life worse, lol.
I did go to law school, and it seems to me that enforcement of this law might amount to an unconstitutional encumbrance of private property without fair compensation in violation of the Takings Clause.
You could argue the law violates a number of things, but what you should not be arguing about is whether it is going to work; it's not.
Went into the link skeptical because of the uninformative OP. Came out wondering why anyone on this board should give a shit.
maybe the title should make it clear they want a perspective, cause it reads like they have one.
As an MGoNotLawyer, I am entirely in favor of eliminating the pain and suffering Crew players ensue by playing in Columbus. Move 'em.
You live in Columbus and I dare not make your life any worse than it is. You already need to provide your own oxygen supply and sewage system, both of which are disproportionately overtaken by Ohio State fans.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cooler%20Pooper
So, what's the recipe for this killer lasagna?
large caveat: not an ohio lawyer. however, if the only 'publicly funded' issue comes from some legislator's subjective 'below-market' cost for parking, it is specious. it is also likely it is violation of federal and possibly state restraint of trade acts. .02 worth. more like .01, but there you have it.
I'm a healthcare regulatory attorney, so this may not be worth the 1s and 0s it's printed on, but that was my take too, though I can imagine a set of facts where the below market cost was clearly tied to public funding, e.g., the city offered $X, but the team requested a reduction in lease fees so that it wouldn't take an immediate tax hit.
The other thing to take into account is the government's power to self-regulate. As long as the law isn't ex post facto, the courts could give the city some latitude on how it interprets its own statutes.
My guess is that the team will just wait 6 months and then trust that no one local is willing to pay the price for the team knowing that the buyer would be buying a lawsuit.
Hmmm, the success of this suit would appear to rise or fall based on the validity of the Ohio law to a challenge to its constitutionality, based on the Commerce Clause. Not my area of law. But the dudes in this article are skeptical:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ohio-lawsuit-soccer/ohio-plan-to-sue…
The law gives the city some type of right of first refusal. It's not an outright restriction.
It's never been tested, that is the bottom line, and I think the Ohio AG has some balls for taking a run at it by suing the Crew to test the law.
I'm a bit confused by the article--I think it misinterprets what the "experts" are saying, or they aren't explaining it well. The Commerce Clause has been interpreted broadly to permit the Federal government to pass laws involving commerce (which is everything). That doesn't mean that local governments can't also pass laws that have an impact on commerce (e.g., a state regulating insurance, credit cards, what cars can be sold, etc.). Here, yes, there are interstate implications, but this is involving the lease of land--hard to get more local.
Are there constitutional issues--absolutely (e.g., right to contract). But I think, ultimately, it's just not practical--too many ways to just pack up and leave.
Again--I'm hardly the expert here, though.
I think the article is referring to what is called the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause of the federal constitution has been interpreted to do two things.
1) It gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states. This is simply a grant of power to the federal government and has nothing to do with state governments.
2) Courts have also, somewhat controversially, interpreted the Commerce Clause to function as an automatic restriction on state regulatory actions that privilege in-state interests over out-of-state competitors. This serves to invalidate state laws without any action from the federal government at all. (I say 'controversially' because some judges really don't think the words of the clause should be understood this way, but the Dormant Commerce Clause goes back over 200 years now so I don't think there is any chance that it is going away.)
Yep I thought about this too
Dormant commerce clause. I think the issue is that states cannot discriminate against out of state commerce, or pass laws that favor their own interests and burden out of state commerce (there is an exception for minimal burdens). Restrictions on moving frachises may implicate out of state commerce. There is a balancing test, and the law is not totally settled.
I agree what the experts in the article say do not get you all the way there. I don't think that there is a federal scheme governing professional sports franchises, such that there is conflict or preemption. That is what one of these dudes implies. But maybe I am missing something.
(Not my area of law either but): The Ohio law here likely runs afoul of the dormant commerce clause because it attempts to restrict interstate commerce. That likely makes it unconstitutional.
It doesn’t make sense from a business perspective to force them to stick around (as the article says). I think the article falls a bit short in that respect if it is true that the AG has political motivations. In that case, he is still likely to lose, but sound business logic is the wrong tool to use to predict his actions.
The law itself is very basic:
9.67 Restrictions on owner of professional sports team that uses a tax-supported facility.
No owner of a professional sports team that uses a tax-supported facility for most of its home games and receives financial assistance from the state or a political subdivision thereof shall cease playing most of its home games at the facility and begin playing most of its home games elsewhere unless the owner either:
(A) Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;
(B) Gives the political subdivision in which the facility is located not less than six months' advance notice of the owner's intention to cease playing most of its home games at the facility and, during the six months after such notice, gives the political subdivision or any individual or group of individuals who reside in the area the opportunity to purchase the team.
As others have stated: not my area of legal specialization, but doubt this lawsuit has much of a chance.
If I'm the Crew, I send in notice today of our intention to move. I would then offer the team for sale for more than any sane person would pay.
This is a terribly worded statute. No fair market value requirement, or even "on commercially reasonable terms" modifier. No statement that the team actually has to move out after 6 months. If I'm the DA, I'm not pursuing this based on that statute, but I don't get paid the big bucks like they do.
I didn't have the time to spend searching for it, but I'm sure there's some random provision somewhere else in the code that has a civil monetary penalty for violating various sections of the code that don't have any other penalties attached to them, and that would be the end of it.
I have to imagine this is a pure political filing knowing the chances of this thing winning are slim to none.
As an Austin resident, I am wholly in favor of this lawsuit. I have no interest in subsidizing professional sports -- especially my least favorite sport of all.
Don't mess with Texas, Columbus. Keep your Crew.
Not a lawyer, and I didn't even look, but I promise you that this is nothing but an attempt to extort a slightly larger exit fee from the Crew. Seattle / Washington State did the same thing regarding the Sonics' move. You can see how well that worked.
As long as people foolishly continue to vote to spend public money on facilities for professional sports, this will continue. There's too much money involved for a lawsuit to be effective.
Let's be honest--this is about you not liking soccer, not you worrying about your tax dollars at work.
I'd write the same post, except for the dig on soccer, if they wanted to move an MLB team, and I love baseball. I would have voted against the subsidy for the minor league stadium if I'd lived here then. I voted against the Key Arena plans when I lived in Seattle. It is a gigantic redistribution of funs from the public to a limited number of individuals who are least in need of it -- the owners of professional sports teams.
Until there's a complaint filed, it's hard to say. They don't link the 1996 law, so it's not clear whether it would apply here. As described in the article, if this law puts restrictions on timing and sale of sports franchises, then a lawsuit of the Crew could be successful if the facts alleged in the article are true. I find that unlikely since jounalists tend to leave out the boring minutiae that prove crucial in an actual lawsuit.
More likely, the Crew are going to either settle with Columbus out of court or follow the law and, finding no buyers, move to Austin.
Fuck submoloc
I'm amazed that you think anybody on this board would care enough about Ohio professional soccer to write an intelligent reply to this.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm also an idiot.
I think that enchiladas are pretty tasty.