NASCAR has officially filed its opposition against a preliminary injunction sought by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports concerning team charters for the 2025 racing season.
The filing contends that the plaintiffs’ request to oblige NASCAR to issue charters after the signing period has already closed lacks the extraordinary circumstances typically required for such injunctions. This statement, delivered as part of a legal document submitted late on Wednesday evening, sets the stage for a contentious hearing, originally slated for next week but delayed due to Hurricane Milton’s projected impact on NASCAR’s Daytona Beach headquarters.
The heart of NASCAR’s opposition rests on several arguments. The organization contends that the sought-after injunction would disrupt the status quo by effectively forcing NASCAR to grant the charters despite the signing period having concluded.
Furthermore, NASCAR suggests financial compensation might suffice, noting the teams’ commitment to compete as open entries and negating claims of irreversible harm.
Chris Graythen/Getty Images
Complicating matters further is the looming threat of Hurricane Milton, which could prompt NASCAR to close its offices temporarily. Citing this possibility, NASCAR has proposed delaying the hearing until November 4, which has now been confirmed.
The response within the legal documents states:
“Defendants are working to prepare oppositions that provide argument, applicable law, and, evidentiary support to demonstrate Defendants positions:
“1) Plaintiffs are seeking a mandatory injunction that is only warranted in the most extraordinary circumstances (which are not present here) since they are seeking to alter the status quo through an injunction requiring NASCAR to provide Charters for 2025 and beyond notwithstanding that the time to sign Charters for 2025 has expired.
“2) Plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm since Plaintiffs and their counsel have confirmed that Plaintiffs’ teams will compete as open teams in 2025, which means that money damages can compensate Plaintiffs even if they were to ultimately prevail.
“3) Plaintiffs cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits for multiple reasons, including that this is a dispute over contract terms, not an antitrust case.”
FRM owner Bob Jenkins has reiterated the team’s resolve to compete irrespective of the current charter debacle. He explained:
“Because of our love for the sport and our determination to maintain the race team we have built, we are determined to race next year even if we have to do so on an ‘open’ basis.
“But at some point, the losses may become so severe that we simply cannot continue — causing irreparable harm to our business, our employees, and the communities and fans we are associated with.”
Similarly, Curtis Polk, co-owner of 23XI Racing shared his confidence, saying:
“We have the resources that if we want to race, we’ll race.”
The case highlights the intricate balancing act of contractual rights and financial survival within motorsport’s competitive arena. With six team charters hanging in the balance, NASCAR’s decision will invariably influence both teams’ future strategies and the dynamics of the competition as a whole.