Federal Judge Denies Injunction to Michael Jordan’s Teams in Lawsuit with NASCAR
In a recent court decision, federal judge Kenneth Bell denied a request for a preliminary injunction filed by two teams, one of which is owned by the legendary NBA player Michael Jordan, in their antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR. The dispute centers on the recognition of these teams as entities entitled to a guaranteed spot in the races (chartered teams) for the remainder of the season. Judge Bell, of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, argued that there were no reasons to grant the injunction to 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports. This is because NASCAR committed to not selling the six charters previously held by the teams until the legal process is complete.The judge also warned about the scenario NASCAR could face if the case is not resolved before the trial. He pointed out the uncertainty this generates not only for the parties involved, but also for other teams, drivers, technical teams, sponsors, broadcasters and, most importantly, the fans. NASCAR, in a statement, expressed that the court decision provides “much needed clarity for the remainder of the 2025 NASCAR season.” The organization reiterated its commitment to the sport and the defense of its values, assuring fans that the lawsuit will not distract them from offering unforgettable moments and crowning the next NASCAR Cup Series champion on November 2. The trial is scheduled for December 1st. The lawyer for the plaintiff teams, Jeffrey Kessler, expressed his gratitude for the clarity established by the judge, ensuring that the status quo is maintained and protecting his clients’ rights to recover their charters if they win the trial. Kessler also emphasized the importance of the judge reaffirming his power to order significant changes in NASCAR if they are successful in the trial, which would benefit teams, drivers, sponsors, and fans. 23XI Racing, the team owned by Michael Jordan and Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports are suing NASCAR over antitrust claims related to the charter system. A charter is equivalent to a franchise and guarantees cars a place on the 40-car grid each week, as well as a significant portion of the payments. NASCAR, after more than two years of negotiations, presented the teams with its final offer on charter extensions; 13 organizations signed the agreements, but 23XI and Front Row refused. The teams initially obtained a preliminary injunction to be recognized as chartered for this season until the jury verdict on the antitrust allegations. That was overturned, and 23XI and FRM are currently competing as “open” teams. NASCAR wants the money paid to the teams during the portion of the season in which they were chartered to be returned. The teams have also appealed for the chartered status to be reinstated, but NASCAR argued in court last week that it has a buyer interested in one of the six charters previously held by 23XI and FRM, and plans to begin redistributing the charters immediately. NASCAR backtracked after Thursday’s hearing. NASCAR maintains that by refraining from redistributing the charters, 23XI and FRM are no longer at risk of irreparable harm. The teams argued that the threat still exists “due to the risk of claims for breach of contract from their irreplaceable drivers and the loss of sponsors in the absence of charter rights.” Tyler Reddick, from 23XI, has a clause in his contract that states the team would be in breach if his Toyota isn’t chartered. Jeffrey Kessler, the lawyer for both teams, indicated in court that Reddick has notified 23XI that it is in breach. Bell wrote in his Wednesday decision that “the loss of ‘fixed’ payments from charters and the uncertainty of ongoing relationships with pilots and sponsors may be offset by monetary damages in the trial or are simply inherent in the risks associated with the lawsuit.”“The court believes it is best not to provide its forecast on the likelihood of success of the plaintiffs on the merits of the matter, and thereby potentially bias the jury, unless necessary, which is not the case here,” wrote Judge Bell.
Judge Kenneth Bell
