Thirteen NASCAR Cup Series teams not named in the ongoing legal battle between 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports, and NASCAR are urging the court to keep them out of the fight.
The Race Team Alliance (RTA), speaking on behalf of those unaffiliated teams, has filed a motion requesting permission to submit a brief as amicus curiae—a Latin legal term for a “friend of the court” document that allows interested parties to provide input without being directly involved in the case.
The lawsuit centers on disputes related to NASCAR’s charter system, which governs team ownership rights and financial structure. While 23XI and Front Row are challenging NASCAR in court, the other 13 charter-holding teams have made it clear they don’t want to be dragged into the proceedings.
According to the RTA’s filing, they’re asking to remain outside the case for three key reasons:
- All 13 teams have already signed the current charter agreement—the very contract at the heart of the legal dispute.
- They argue they don’t meet the legal criteria under Rule 19 that would require them to be added as parties.
- Involving them would complicate and prolong the lawsuit, potentially pushing the case well past its scheduled December 1 trial date and into the 2026 season.
In short, the majority of Cup Series teams want the court to let them stay on the sidelines as this high-stakes legal fight plays out between their peers and the sanctioning body.
HOWEVER, several prominent NASCAR team owners, including Rick Hendrick and Richard Childress, have already publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the new charter agreement. Their statements, made around the time the agreement was signed, reflect the tension and dissatisfaction among team owners regarding the deal, while highlighting issues such as the limited negotiation time, their concerns over fairness, and the pressure to sign under tight deadlines.
Anyone with even a modest knowledge of the law knows that public statements most definitely can be used—without permission from the speaker—especially if the comments support the plaintiff’s claim. This is because public statements are not considered hearsay. The court cannot stop attorneys from using publicly available statements as evidence, nor can it prevent subpoenas if the statements indicate the person has knowledge or insight of the situation—the kind of insight that other owners most certainly would have.
Judges often try to avoid dragging unwilling third parties into the direct conflict. However, if Jeffrey Kessler (the antitrust lawyer for 23X1 and FRM) can show that team owners have communications and documents with inside knowledge of NASCAR’s operations and how it affects teams, the judge might allow them to be subpoenaed…. regardless of how unwilling they are.
We’ll have to wait and see.