Skip to main content
NASCAR Logo

Insider drops bombshell on NASCAR vs. 23XI, FRM case

Brian Jones Profile Picby: Brian Jones06/12/25brianjones_93

An insider shared some interesting news concerning the NASCAR vs. 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports (FRM) case. On Kevin Harvick’s Happy Hour, Bob Pockrass of FOX Sports detailed how the other NASCAR teams could get involved when the case goes to trial later this year.

“The district court judge, the judge who would preside over the trial, has based both 23XI, Front Row and NASCAR to explain to him why the parties shouldn’t be parties in this case,” Pockrass said. “All the decisions in this could heavily impact the race teams. Now, the Race Team Alliance has put in the court filings that the teams do not want to be part of this. They don’t feel they should be part of it, partly because the charter agreement requires that if there’s a dispute, they go to arbitration and not be in the legal system.

“The other big thing is that NASCAR is subpoenaing the teams for some financial information so that they can have that info at trial, and the teams certainly don’t want to open up their finances to NASCAR. And I would think that if NASCAR goes to court to compel the teams to give them that information, that could push them a little more over to the 23XI and the Front Row side.”

More details on the NASCAR vs. 23XI, FRM lawsuit

23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports filed a lawsuit against NASCAR and Chairman Jim France on October 2. A week later, the teams filed a motin to allow them to race in 2025 as chartered teams. The motion was granted, but the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the injunction requiring NASCAR to treat 23XI and FRM as chartered teams on June 5. They have at least until June 26 to ask for a rehearing by the three-judge panel or all the appeals court judges to hear the case.

“We are disappointed by today’s ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and are reviewing the decision to determine our next steps,” 23XI/FRM attorney Jeffrey Kessler said in a statement. “This ruling is based on a very narrow consideration of whether a release of claims in the charter agreements is anti-competitive and does not impact our chances of winning at trial scheduled for December 1.”