In the latest filing over its pursuit of a preliminary injunction that would allow them to compete in the Cup Series through the duration of its lawsuit against NASCAR, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports argued that choosing to run as an open team would also forfeit its legal standing over antitrust claims against the Sanctioning Body.
The two teams are suing NASCAR on monopolistic and anti-competitive grounds, a decision made after not signing the contract extension to the charter system that governs revenue sharing and governance, but also want to be included in that system until a settlement or judgement is reached.
23XI Racing is owned by sporting legend Michael Jordan and veteran racer Denny Hamlin and Front Row Motorsports is owned by restaurant franchisee Bob Jenkins.
NASCAR has claimed through its legal filings that the two teams should run without charters because they chose not to sign the document, while even bringing litigation around it, and have also publicly stated its intent to compete without charters should it become necessary.
The Sanctioning Body also claims that the charter agreement used from 2016 to 2024 also featured a clause that prohibits lawsuits on antitrust grounds but the teams wrote on Wednesday that the agreement for open teams feature the same release for NASCAR.
In other words, teams that agree to race on an open basis also cannot sue NASCAR on antitrust grounds. The teams included the 2025 open agreement as a document of reference, but the details were publicly redacted as per an agreement between the two parties last week.
From the latest teams’ filing:
“Defendants (NASCAR) argue that Plaintiffs (23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports) can compete as open teams and avoid irreparable harm. But what Defendants do not tell the Court is that they have included the same mandatory release in their open agreements as they imposed in their Charter Agreements. Without a injunction, Plaintiffs cannot compete at all without suffering the irreparable harm of risking the forfeiture of their antitrust claims.”
The teams also claim the release from being sued by teams on antitrust grounds, combined with NASCAR’s claims that a statute of limitations has expired, both do not apply because of what it deems as ‘ongoing exclusionary acts’ including ‘restrictive covenants on the racetracks and racing teams.’
The teams continue to cite the acquisition of the ARCA Racing Series and the NASCAR-International Speedway Corporation merger as examples of monopolistic behavior.
In a redacted document from last week, NASCAR appears to have made an argument that the existence of the Superstar Racing Experience from 2021-to-2023 proved competition in the marketplace but the teams disputed that in its latest filing.
“Defendants’ reference to SRX confirms Defendant’s monopoly. SRX had to adopt a ‘differentiated’ format precisely because of Defendant’s exclusionary acts. And SRX shut down after only three seasons.”
SRX was on CBS in its first two six-week summer seasons and on ESPN in its final campaign last year.
The teams also claims that the court granting the preliminary injunction, and therefor allowing the two teams to remain within the charter system throughout the duration of the legal process, will not harm NASCAR. It also maintains that it will preserve the status quo from before the suit was brought forth.
“It will simply require Defendants to enter into the status quo 2025 Charter Agreements offered to Plaintiffs two weeks before this litigation absent the ability to enforce the release. By contrast, if the injunction is not granted, Plaintiffs will either have to forego competing or risk losing their antitrust rights.”
The teams, through its representation, cited the precedence of United States v Clarkson form 2007 that ruled defendant ‘will not suffer irreparable harm by being forced to comply with the law.’
The first hearing over the preliminary injunction matter is scheduled for Monday, November 4, and the court has not yet ruled on whether to grant expedited discovery, the opening of certain documents pertinent over the matter.
23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have requested six key documents that it argues is vital to proving its case. Those documents include the 2016 charter agreement, 2025 charter agreement and NASCAR’s acquisition of both ARCA and International Speedway Corporation over how it ‘discuss(es)’ the ‘competitive purpose or effect.’
The teams have said the requested documents are ‘narrow in scope’ and are limited to proving the harm the teams will be subject to if they run next season as open teams.
NASCAR says it has already formalized a model for next season for 32 chartered teams, and has given those teams (and open teams) more money in response to the other two charters being repossessed.
Currently, 23XI Racing has two chartered cars driven by Tyler Reddick and Bubba Wallace, and Front Row Motorsports has Noah Gragson and Todd Gilliland under contract for next season. Both teams have also acquired, in principle, a third charter each from the closure of Stewart-Haas Racing but those transactions must be approved by NASCAR, who says the teams have not yet formally made such a request.
The full 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