NASCAR Claims Nothing Has Changed Between Teams' Two Injunction Requests

NASCAR has responded to a second injunction request issued by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, as the two teams attempt to have the court force the sanctioning body into issuing them temporary charters.

When it comes to the new injunction request, the end goal is for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports to be awarded a temporary Charter for the duration of the ongoing antitrust lawsuit. The main point of argument for the teams, is that not being awarded these charters, would lead to irreparable harm.

The difficult part, though, is that Judge Frank D. Whitney already denied the first injunction request by the teams, and in doing so, stated that the evidence provided didn't show irreparable harm was guaranteed, but rather speculated.

Now, being led by attorney Jeffrey Kessler, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports are attempting to request another preliminary injunction, claiming changed circumstances. Filings of this second injunction request have redacted three of those four listed changes, but the one that isn't, referred to NASCAR's move to eliminate verbiage prohibiting non-chartered teams from suing the sanctioning body.

However, NASCAR argues that none of those four reasons brought forward as changed circumstances, actually cause the teams irreparable harm, making the legal standing for the injunction request non-existent.

“A month ago, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ first motion, characterizing their claimed harm as ‘speculative’ and ‘possible’, but not ‘immediate’ or ‘irreparable’. After seeking and then dismissing an expedited appeal, Plaintiffs now claim ‘changed circumstances’ to try and overcome this ruling. Yet, even with their manufactured evidence, Plaintiffs still fall far short of a clear showing of irreparable harm.”

Among the biggest arguments in the first preliminary injunction request were 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports claiming that their drivers and sponsors could opt-out if the team didn't have a charter, and that running as a non-chartered entry would leave them vulnerable to missing races.

The sanctioning body fired back in its most recent filing: “Since that Order, nothing has changed. Plaintiffs recycle the arguments the Court already rejected. For instance, they suggest that drivers might leave absent a Charter. The first bullet in Plaintiffs’ Motion makes this abundantly clear: Reddick can leave. But a mere ‘possibility’ of harm is precisely what this Court properly rejected in its previous Order.

“Further, the fact that some—but not all—of Plaintiffs’ drivers could leave is entirely self-inflicted, stemming from driver contracts that Plaintiffs negotiated, Plaintiffs’ decision not to sign Charters despite being aware of those exit provisions, and Plaintiffs’ dramatic rhetoric at the hearing and to the press.”

To make a long story short, NASCAR believes that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have brought it upon themselves.

“Plaintiffs cannot manufacture a crisis by filing a lawsuit and then demanding relief from its consequences—that is just as inequitable as it is self-inflicted. And to the extent sponsor concerns are driven by the fact that Plaintiffs could fail to qualify for a race, such concerns are, as this Court already held, speculative.”

Ahead of the 2025 NASCAR Cup Series campaign, both 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have attempted to acquire another Charter from the now defunct Stewart-Haas Racing. However, this lawsuit has created a snafu -- with NASCAR refusing to approve the transfer of the charters.

Both 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have announced intentions to field a third full-time entry in the NASCAR Cup Series for 2025. Riley Herbst as been announced as the third driver for 23XI, while no driver has been announced for Front Row's third entry.

“No extraordinary circumstances exist here: Plaintiffs had their chances to sign Charters but refused to take them, and were well aware that they would need to accept the Charter terms to which SHR agreed. Plaintiffs cannot now simply exclaim ‘monopoly’ to rewrite agreements giving[themselves] unilateral benefit.”

NASCAR further argues that the team’s willingness to spent millions of dollars to acquire another NASCAR Cup Series Charter, and their decision to field another open entry during this lawsuit, is evidence of the financial strength of the organizations.

“And the fact that 23XI intends to expand the number of cars it runs from two to four in 2025 underscores the sky is not really falling. Finally, even if Plaintiffs did fail to qualify for races, any loss of sponsorship would be entirely self-inflicted, as Plaintiffs had the chance to sign Charters that would have guaranteed them entry … but rejected the offer.”