The judge overseeing the NASCAR antitrust case has ruled that the sanctioning body must immediately approve Front Row Motorsports closing out on the acquisition of a charter it purchased from Stewart-Haas Racing back in April.
It’s the charter that was most recently known as the No. 10 car driven by Noah Gragson last season.
This was the same ruling Judge Kenneth D. Bell reached on Wednesday but NASCAR motioned to have that order delayed pending the outcome of the appeal it intended to file on the merits as a result. NASCAR reasoned that once the SHR charters were transferred, it could not be easily undone should they ultimately win the appeal.
The decision also awarded 23XI and Front Row de facto charter status during the 2025 season. That decision was made by the judge because Tyler Reddick had an opt-out clause in his contract that triggered if 23XI did not have a charter.
Bell also determined that a contractual clause NASCAR placed in the charter agreements, ones that attempted to prevent teams from bringing a lawsuit against them, was anticompetitive and a violation of federal antitrust law.
The decision was made, according to Bell, to place the parties in a state of status quo back to how things were over the summer until a conclusion to the legal process is achieved. Bell also scheduled a trial in the case for December 1, 2025.
Bell made one amendment to the decision and that is only forcing NASCAR to approve the Stewart-Haas and Front Row transaction. The charter 23XI Racing entered into an agreement with Stewart-Haas was not included in the original set of back-and-forth filings so that will need be motioned separately.
Expect 23XI Racing to make such a request to the court as soon as possible.
Despite NASCAR’s arguments to the contrary, the judge still believes the ‘release clause’ preventing teams from filing a lawsuit against the sanctioning body is a likely violation of federal antitrust. Bell writes:
“As the Court noted in its injunction Order, the Release is hardly a model of clarity, but Defendants’ view that the Release bars Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims in this action is crystal clear.”
NASCAR says since teams signed the 2016-to-2024 document that contained the same lawsuit release clause, it’s not a violation of the law. The judge says an antitrust violation is likely occurring right now.
“Even accepting Defendants’ inapplicable arguments related to ‘retrospective’ claims, Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims relate to ongoing and prospective conduct.”
NASCAR has also argued, simultaneously, that 23XI and Front Row should not be able to file an antitrust lawsuit over the 2025 agreement because they refused to sign it while also arguing they should not be able to file a lawsuit over the 2016 lawsuit — both featuring the same language preventing teams from suing.
The judge took NASCAR and lead lawyer Chris Yates to task on the subject, suggesting that it is both a logical and potentially unlawful conflict of facts.
“In fact, the claimed effect of Defendants’ arguments with respect to Plaintiffs’ refusal to sign the Release as part of the 2025 Charter Agreement is even broader. In their Answer, Defendants assert as a defense that Plaintiffs can’t bring their claims because they didn’t sign the 2025 Charter Agreements and thus aren’t ‘efficient enforcers’ of the antitrust claims.
“So, Plaintiffs or any other team that wanted to challenge NASCAR’s conduct as an antitrust violation is (according to Defendants) put in a classic ‘Catch-22’ — the team must accept the 2025 Charter Agreement, including the Release that bars Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, but if it doesn’t sign the Charter Agreement then it can’t bring those same antitrust claims because it doesn’t hold a charter.
“Again, the NCAA is an apt analogy. Could the NCAA just say to all prospective ‘student-athletes’ that they can’t play unless they agree to release the NCAA from antitrust liability? Of course not. NASCAR’s ‘release to race’ requirement simply doesn’t pass muster and is likely to be found to violate antitrust law.”
The judge rebuts NASCAR’s argument that the order forces the sanctioning body into a binding contractual agreement with parties that is suing it on grounds that those terms are anticompetitive and illegal by offering that the injunctive was limited.
Bell only forced NASCAR to treat 23XI and Front Row as chartered for the 2025 season until a hearing that get the matter closer to a resolution prior to the start of the 2026 season.
The judge also once again pushed back on NASCAR’s argument that it never had the chance to argue the inclusion of Front Row asking the court to force the approval of the Stewart-Haas transaction. Bell continues to write that the time NASCAR spent on trying to strike that request from the record should have been, and arguably was used anyway, to make the legal case against it.
“Defendants had notice of Plaintiffs’ request that Front Row be permitted to complete the transfer of the SHR charter they previously agreed to purchase. Further, although there is no requirement in the rule that a decision on a preliminary injunction motion be delayed until briefs can be filed, Defendants have now at least twice presented their written arguments and evidence to the Court opposing this injunctive relief. The Court has not restricted Defendants’ presentation of their position on this issue and has carefully considered all of Defendants’ submissions (as well as stayed the implementation of this part of the injunction while it did so).”
The judge said the court had to rule on the matter because NASCAR denying the transfer of the SHR to FRM charter was happening in real-time over the first week of December.
Front Row could not include that ask in the original injunction request because NASCAR had not objected to it yet, with the teams arguing with written and testimonial evidence that the sanctioning body had agreed to the transfer on multiple occasions over the summer.
It’s worth noting that this was before the two teams sued NASCAR, however.
The judge continues:
“Also, the communications and events related to the transfers of the SHR charters were happening in real time throughout the first weeks of December (one of the letters that Defendants have filed is dated as late as December 17, 2024), and the Court and the Parties did their best to brief and decide the dispute in time for the ruling to be meaningful. The Court credits Plaintiffs’ evidence that at the time of the Plaintiffs’ first motion for a preliminary injunction (October 9) and the time of its renewed motion (November 26), they believed there was no need to ask the Court to order Defendants to approve the SHR charter transfer to Front Row.
“On September 11, 2024, NASCAR President Steve Phelps informed Front Row that its SHR transfer was approved, and that Front Row just needed to submit the customary transfer documents.
“Phelps again confirmed that the transfer was approved. Front Row submitted the paperwork on November 14, 2024, and after some additional questions and submissions, NASCAR informed Front Row on December 5, 2024, that it would not approve the transfer. The only intervening event was Front Row filing this lawsuit. Indeed, Defendants expressly informed Front Row that it would have to drop its lawsuit and release its antitrust rights before NASCAR would approve the transfer.”
The judge is effectively, again, saying that NASCAR is in seeming violation of antitrust law by attempting to enforce the release clause so there is no likelihood of success on appeal or a reason to delay the order.
The judge also ruled there would be no imminent harm to NASCAR if 23XI and Front Row are allowed to race under the terms of the 2025 agreement
Judge Bell says NASCAR can’t claim harm in good faith because it has spent two months telling the court how beneficial the 2025 charter agreement is for both the teams and the sanctioning body.
From Bell, emphasis his:
“Actually, applying the charter terms to Plaintiffs’ race cars will not harm NASCAR at all. NASCAR has the same terms with 30 other cars and has repeatedly represented to the Court that those terms reflect a fair and beneficial deal for all concerned. So, the Court’s injunction requiring NASCAR to permit Plaintiffs’ to race chartered cars cannot constitute ‘irreparable harm’ to NASCAR.”
Beyond that, the judge says it is in the public interest of the consumer, which is the fans in this case, that all the best cars and best drivers are represented in every race next season as this case plays out, pending a resolution.
Bell also said NASCAR’s argument that it would have to share confidential information with the two teams that didn’t agree to the terms to receive was meritless. The reason? The two parties will have to subject themselves to discovery next summer prior to a trial.
23XI and Front Row would be privy to all those documents anyway so NASCAR cannot in good faith be imminently harmed over providing documents to the teams they will likely hand over this summer regardless.
What next?
NASCAR has already signaled its intent to appeal to the fourth circuit court, likely asking it to allow the teams entry into every race but not to include it in the financial perks of the charter agreement.
NASCAR also has a filing due on Monday, independent of the injunction ruling, on its motion to dismiss the lawsuit entirely.
23XI will now need to motion with an argument why the court should also order NASCAR to approve its own transaction of an acquired Stewart-Haas Racing charter.
Legal document
Lawsuit timeline
23XI Racing, Front Row decline to sign NASCAR’s final 2025-2031 charter document
Why 23XI, Front Row filed a lawsuit against NASCAR
23XI, Front Row makes his case in antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR
Richard Childress says he had ‘no choice’ but to sign charter document
How drivers feel about the lawsuit
Michael Jordan comments on his team’s lawsuit against NASCAR
Meet NASCAR’s antitrust defense lawyer
NASCAR files injunction to be included in charter system through lawsuit
NASCAR motions against team’s preliminary injunction request
NASCAR, teams consent to redacting charter details in filings
Teams make case for injunctive relief, expedited discovery
NASCAR’s lengthy rebuttal to injunction, lawsuit
Teams respond to NASCAR response over injunction
23XI, Front Row and NASCAR go to court over injunctions
Judge rules against teams preliminary injunction request
Denny Hamlin says 23XI may not race next year
What preliminary injunction denial means for lawsuit
NASCAR drops ‘lawsuit release clause’ in open agreement
Appeal timeline rebuttal filed by NASCAR
Why 23XI may not have to race in the Clash without charters
Teams drop appeal, may re-file in district court
23XI, Front Row re-file injunction request
NASCAR opposes expedited timeline
France, NASCAR motion to dismiss, deny SHR charter transfer request
NASCAR says injunctive request still fails to show irreparable harm
Teams say NASCAR went back on its word over SHR charters
23XI, Front Row respond to NASCAR’s motion to dismiss
Judge orders NASCAR to issue charters to 23XI, Front Row
NASCAR plans to appeal injunction ruling; other details
Judge grants partial stay of injunction in blunt response to NASCAR
Teams accuse NASCAR of petulance in response to delay request
Why Judge Bell did not delay his injunction order
Matt Weaver is a Motorsports Insider for Sportsnaut. Follow him on Twitter.
