Michael Jordan is pursuing an injunction against NASCAR once more

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney rejected a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, owned by Michael Jordan, in their antitrust case against NASCAR. The judge explained that Jordan’s group had not proven what specific harms would occur in the absence of an injunction.

Without an order that would permit them to operate as de facto chartered teams even though they did not sign the charter, Whitney believed the plaintiffs were speculating about the possible loss of drivers, sponsorships, and fans for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports. He emphasized that the approach does not meet the high, practical conditions needed to get an injunction, which is regarded as an extraordinary remedy because it can be granted until a trial.

Jordan’s legal team, which includes sports litigator Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn, is adamant that “circumstances have changed” in a new motion for a preliminary injunction that was filed on Tuesday. What was only a hypothetical risk two weeks ago “has come to fruition,” according to Kessler. In light of this, he claims that the “immediate” necessity for an injunction is “crystal clear” and that his two client teams risk irreversible injury.

Why is it so “crystal clear,” and what is that harm exactly? We’re not sure for sure.

There is extensive redaction in the 21-page memorandum of law supporting a motion. The document mentions “the following changed circumstances have occurred” after describing the days following Whitney’s denial of the prior application for a preliminary injunction earlier this month. After that statement, there are four paragraphs with bullet points in between. Of those paragraphs, three have been completely redacted.

There is some redaction in the fourth paragraph. It mentions that Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing were just permitted by NASCAR to ride as open (non-chartered) teams in 2025 without having to disclose their antitrust accusations. It further emphasizes that 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports “have contracted to purchase from Stewart-Haas Racing” under the terms of their charter agreements, which still call for the release. The memorandum redacts whatever the closing date for that transaction may be, but it makes reference to it.

Kessler maintains that his clients must “make the Hobson’s choice” between “forgoing the irreplaceable opportunity to purchase an additional charter” or completing the deal with Stewart-Haas Racing and avoiding antitrust lawsuits. Although Kessler’s arguments are not publicly visible, the main idea is that his clients will miss out on a particular agreement with Stewart-Haas Racing if an injunction is not issued to prevent them from implementing the transaction and avoiding antitrust accusations.

Kessler’s memorandum will be subject to challenge by NASCAR’s lawyers. Jordan’s second shot misses the hoop once more, and they will contend in a future brief that the purportedly altered conditions Kessler mentioned do not significantly impact the calculation for a preliminary injunction.

Whitney’s refusal was challenged to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit by 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports, but they later abandoned their petition. With the renewed motion, they now think Whitney will see it more favorably.