A federal district judge on Friday denied NASCAR’s action to ignore the antitrust lawsuit brought by 23XI Racing, which is owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports. Both sides may be required to provide sworn testimony on contentious and delicate subjects as well as email, text, and other evidence as part of the pretrial discovery process.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell argued that the table for a plaintiff to win a departure of the case is quite high because the two sides have presented such radically different portrayals of the legal issues that he didn’t dismiss the case without seeing “what is the true proof” and how that evidence “informs a proper constitutional conclusion.”

Bell implied the two factors, whose legal papers have at times veered into the world of rhetoric, have extremely dramatized their high-profile conflict.
The judge opined that” the parties to this activity cast their ontological debate in radically different words.”
Bell claimed that NASCAR positions itself and the France Family as the “founders and guiding lights of a precious and valuable driving set” that negotiates contract agreements featuring “reasonable” terms that “mutually benefit” NASCAR and the teams, while 23XI Racing and Front Row body NASCAR as” the iron-fisted monopoly ruler of leading stock car racing.”
The prosecutor argued that the case record is quick on the evidence and testimony needed to evaluate the legal arguments, despite the case record’s significant amount of fiery rhetoric. He emphasized that “answers may be found” simply by giving the two parties a chance to create documents and sworn statements that affect whether NASCAR’s method of charters, which guarantee teams a starting place in NASCAR-sanctioned races while restricting their capacity to compete in different circuits, on harmony enhance or detract from competitors.
The decision is a setback for NASCAR because it obviously wanted the case to be dismissed, but it does not mean NASCAR will lose the case. NSCAR could demonstrate that its charter system is necessary to create a highly marketable product that is popular with fans and broadcasters and has generated significant earnings for teams using evidence and testimony, including from sports economists and other experts. Although the charters that 23XI Racing and Front Row maintain and the accompanying requirements for the release of potential legal claims are anti-competitive, NASCAR can assert that alternative arrangements that might appear to be more favorable to teams would make the sport less appealing or less competitive.

Pretrial discovery is also a double-edged sword. While Front Row and 23XI Racing can slam invasive requests at NASCAR, NASCAR can do the same for the two teams. For example, Jordan will be asked to provide sworn testimony and share correspondences, including with drivers. Materials that emerge during the course of discovery are likely to be made available to the general public as well.
NASCAR’s defense is also playing out at the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The preliminary injunction that prohibits NASCAR from denying 23XI Racing and Front Row the same conditions that were offered to charter teams and prevents NASCAR from requiring the release of legal claims was challenged by NASCAR last month. The injunction also greenlighted a purchase of Stewart-Haas Racing charters. The injunction will remain in effect through the 2025 season unless it is vacated by the Fourth Circuit or terminated by the parties ‘ out-of-court settlement.
The injunction also played a role in Bell’s order on Friday. In addition to denying NASCAR’s motion to dismiss, the judge also denied motion for a bond in excess of$ 10 million.
For each car that is permitted to compete, NASCAR requests that 23XI Racing and Front Row post a bond worth more than$ 10 million. The injunction, which arguably places 23XI Racing and Front Row in a superior position because (unlike charter teams ), they are not required to relinquish legal claims, is what Nascar’s logic is. Due to 23XI Racing and Front Row gaining a share of the pool money that NASCAR has contractually pledged to pay chartered teams, NASCAR claims it will suffer monetary harm. The portion of pool money that would go to 23XI Racing and Front Row would go to the 30 chartered teams in the form of more prize money, NASCAR has maintained without an injunction. The plaintiffs disagree. They contend that NASCAR won’t suffer if it can because it will be doing so under the same conditions that apply to the 30 chartered teams.

Bell argued that NASCAR hasn’t yet established how much harm it would suffer” by having to pay Plaintiffs as chartered teams” or by how much. NASCAR should be distinguished from competing teams and other interested parties, as he argued. Bell also made note of the fact that shares of money to be given to 23XI Racing and Front Row depend on how their cars perform in races, which is the same as it would be if they were ( non-chartered ) open teams. The judge noted that NASCAR may later seek damages recovery if the Fourth Circuit overturns the injunction.
In a statement shared with media outlets, the plaintiffs ‘ lead attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, said he was pleased with Friday’s rulings. Although the parties could settle at any point and the litigation schedule could get delayed for a host of reasons, the parties are currently set for trial on Dec. 1, 2025, in Charlotte, N. C.
This article was written by Scott Soshnick.