U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on Wednesday denied a motion by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports for a preliminary injunction, with the judge reasoning that an injunction is unnecessary. Bell emphasized NASCAR’s assurance that the two teams will have the chance to compete as open cars in upcoming Cup Series races and that NASCAR won’t sell disputed charters.
To that point, Bell reasoned that 23XI and Front Row can’t establish they’d suffer irreparable harm, meaning a kind of harm that money damages can’t fix, without an injunction. This is true of the teams’ drivers and sponsors. 23XI and Front Row can keep competing and their disagreement with NASCAR over ownership of contested charters will remain a sidelined topic until their jury trial begins on Dec. 1.
23XI and Front Row have repeatedly sought an injunction that would enable them to compete with the same benefits enjoyed by charter teams without, as charter teams must do, accepting a key condition: A mutual release of legal claims. Charters are valuable because, among other things, they guarantee entry for one car into every Cup Series race. NASCAR maintains 23XI and Front Row are trying to use litigation to obtain a preferred contractual status over charter teams, while 23XI and Front Row insist they need that status to compete in the Cup Series and bring antitrust claims at the same time.
Bell’s denial of an injunction, just like his granting of one last December that was later vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, doesn’t make it more or less likely that one side will win the trial. Whereas injunctive relief is mainly about maintaining a status quo and preventing irreparable harm before parties go to trial, the trial will center on the merits and weaknesses of 23XI and Front Row’s antitrust arguments that NASCAR has too much control over premier stock car racing teams.
In a statement, NASCAR said it welcomes Bell’s order, which “brings much-needed clarity to the remainder of the 2025 NASCAR season.” NASCAR’s statement also highlighted what should be a key argument in the trial: NASCAR and the France Family undertook “personal and financial risks to build a sport” that “delivers world-class competition” and supplies market benefits for fans, consumers, drivers and teams. That line of reasoning is intended to assert that NASCAR promotes, not restrains, competition in the marketplace and has created a product very popular with fans, sponsors and TV networks. Similarly, expect NASCAR to maintain its business has stimulated job and other economic opportunities for drivers and teams.
Jeffrey Kessler, who is lead attorney for 23XI and Front Row, said in a statement that his clients are “grateful that Judge Bell has made clear that the status quo is being maintained—protecting my clients’ rights to regain their charters if they prevail at trial and ensuring their ability to continue racing through the 2025 season based on NASCAR’s commitments.” He added that “we are ready to present our case at trial in December.”
While both sides publicly express eagerness to defeat the other in the trial, keep in mind they could reach a settlement at any point—including before a trial starts.
Sometimes as trials near, warring sides decide they’re better off cutting a deal than taking their chances in a trial. That is especially true in a high-profile dispute like this one. If the NASCAR trial happens, major sports figures, including 23XI co-owners Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin as well top NASCAR officials, will face hostile questions while under oath in front of jurors. Don’t be shocked if they decide they work out a solution that ends the dispute before a trial.