NASCAR is requesting a federal district judge to delay the enforcement of a decision requiring the sanctioning body to approve the transfer of two charters from Stewart-Haas Racing (SHR) to 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, pending its appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Kenneth Bell recently ruled that NASCAR must recognize 23XI and Front Row as chartered teams for the 2025 season and approve the transfer of the charters Stewart-Haas sold to them earlier this year. NASCAR, however, seeks a stay on this decision, arguing it intends to appeal the ruling on its merits and wants the delay to prevent what it describes as irreversible consequences.
NASCAR has asked for an expedited ruling by Friday, as 23XI and Front Row plan to finalize their acquisition of the charters from SHR by the end of the day. NASCAR proposes a compromise where the two teams would be allowed entry into every race in 2025 but would not receive the financial benefits associated with chartered status. This arrangement, according to NASCAR, would address concerns about drivers and sponsors exiting due to the lack of guaranteed entry while avoiding granting the teams full charter privileges prematurely.
To safeguard against potential financial loss, NASCAR is also requesting a bond to cover any payouts to 23XI and Front Row should the teams ultimately win their antitrust case. NASCAR argues that forcing it to honor all charter benefits, including increased payments tied to the “Goodwill” provision, which the plaintiffs claim is anticompetitive, would contradict established legal precedent.
NASCAR claims it will suffer significant harm if the court denies its request, highlighting that the injunction effectively locks NASCAR into a long-term contractual relationship with 23XI and Front Row, despite the teams not meeting all required conditions for the charter transfers. The sanctioning body further states that the transfers would be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse once completed and that disclosing confidential information to the teams, as required under the ruling, would cause irreparable damage.
Additionally, NASCAR contends that the court’s decision was overly broad and based on procedural issues, such as the plaintiffs raising the request for charter approval as part of their response rather than their initial filing. NASCAR also notes that the initial response only sought approval for Front Row’s charter transfer, not 23XI’s, and argues the court overstepped by granting relief for both.
NASCAR reiterated its stance regarding the 2025 charters, emphasizing that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports were awarded Stewart-Haas Racing (SHR) charters under terms agreed upon by their previous owners. These are the same terms that the two teams now suing NASCAR claim to be anti-competitive and at the center of their lawsuit.
NASCAR pointed out that SHR, along with 12 other teams covering 32 charters, had reached a mutual agreement with NASCAR on the terms of the 2025 charter, which included a clause releasing NASCAR from legal claims. The plaintiffs, however, did not agree to these terms, nor did they address this release provision.
NASCAR also highlighted that the charters between SHR and NASCAR include multiple conditions for transfer, which the plaintiffs have not fulfilled. One key point is that the plaintiffs dispute the “Goodwill” provision of the charter, indicating their unwillingness to adhere to it.
The organization argued that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports should not be allowed to selectively adhere to only the terms of the agreement that suit them while disregarding others.
Furthermore, NASCAR expressed frustration that it was not given a proper opportunity to argue its position in court. Judge Bell granted injunctive relief to 23XI and Front Row, awarding them chartered status, just as driver Tyler Reddick’s opt-out clause in his contract created a situation of imminent harm. NASCAR claimed this injunction was granted based on a motion filed in response to the SHR charters rather than the original lawsuit.
NASCAR criticized the court’s decision, stating it failed to consider contractual grounds for denying the transfer of SHR charters. The court, NASCAR argued, incorrectly assumed that objections were solely based on the release-of-claims clause. NASCAR emphasized that other contractually specified conditions, such as arbitration for disputes over charter transfers, were ignored. It stated that it would have addressed these issues more thoroughly if given the chance to respond to the plaintiffs’ latest motion.
