In a move that shifts the seriousness of 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports’ antitrust case against NASCAR to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on Monday denied the motion to stay NASCAR – pending NASCAR’s appeal to the Fourth Circuit: the Bell injunction ordered last week.
The injunction, which applies to the 2025 season unless overturned on appeal, prevents NASCAR from denying 23XI Racing and Front Row the same terms offered to charter teams and ensures that both teams are not obligated to drop their lawsuits against NASCAR. In court documents, NASCAR described the arrangement as unfair and illegal since 23XI Racing and Front Row obtain arguably higher status than charter teams. NASCAR’s appeal to the Fourth Circuit will continue to raise arguments that may carry more weight with the appeals judges than with Bell.
More from Sportico.com
The injunction also impacts 23XI Racing and Front Row’s plan to acquire charters from Stewart-Haas Racing (SHR). Bell’s order Monday modified the injunction so that while it continues to prohibit NASCAR from “refusing to immediately approve” Front Row’s purchase of a charter from SHR, it no longer protects the possible purchase by 23XI Racing of a charter from SHR. The judge explained that the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction did not contemplate 23XI’s purchase of an SHR charter. “Although the circumstances and issues surrounding 23XI’s purchase of an SHR charter significantly overlap with the transfer of the SHR charter to Front Row,” Bell wrote, “the situation is not entirely the same.” Bell noted that 23XI Racing, which is owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin, could separately seek an injunction to allow the purchase.
As for the denial of the stay, Bell wrote that “almost every argument” NASCAR raised “have already been brought to the Court.” This point of view echoes that raised by the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, in a filing earlier Monday. Bell also objected to NASCAR writing that it suffered a “misunderstanding” about the waiver provision and its relationship to the law. While NASCAR said the provision was not prospective and had retroactive effect, Bell countered that the release “is hardly a model of clarity.” He also held that NASCAR’s own pleadings “admit that the release is applicable to much more than ‘retrospective’ claims.”
Additionally, Bell highlighted the “significant collateral damage” that “SHR and its former employees” would suffer if it granted the stay. Bell wrote that SHR “has already announced the closure of most of its operations” and that many of its employees have “been laid off and joined the plaintiffs.” Granting this reprieve, Bell feared, would have the effect of “throwing former employees into limbo.”
NASCAR’s legal attention will now turn to the appeal to the Fourth Circuit. He will seek the law in the Fourth Circuit as quickly as possible, but appeals can take several weeks or longer. Additionally, proceedings tend to slow down at this time of year due to the Christmas and New Year holidays, during which many judges, clerks and other court employees are away from work.
The best of Sportico.com
Register for Sportico Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, TwitterAnd Instagram.
