CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A day after NASCAR sparred with two of its Cup Series teams at a hearing in Charlotte, the sanctioning body made a few points to help clarify a key pair of questions the court’s residing judge had.

In a court filing Friday, NASCAR offered four “voluntary commitments.” Those commitments all addressed two questions district judge Kenneth Bell made during Thursday’s hearing:

If NASCAR planned to immediately redistribute the charters operated by the Plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit — 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports — why couldn’t NASCAR sell one of its separate charters (one not operated by 23XI or FRM)?

And if the series insists on selling one of the six charters operated by 23XI and FRM, why couldn’t the motorsport sanctioning body come up with a contingency plan to return the to 23XI and FRM if NASCAR loses at trial?

NASCAR’s six-page filing in the Western District of North Carolina on Friday attempts to put those questions to rest:

— NASCAR wrote that it will not change Rule 7.9.1.1.C in the rulebook, which “provides that up to six Open Teams will be eligible for starting grid positions based on the highest ranked Team Owner Points standings, for the remainder of the 2025 Cup Series season,” according to court documents. This iteration of the rule was instituted in July, effectively allowing NASCAR to guarantee the six 23XI and FRM cars to be in the field if more than 40 cars enter a race.

— NASCAR also will not “issue, sell, convey or lease any additional Charters for the 2025 Cup Series season.”

— NASCAR will also not effectuate a sale, conveyance or lease without court approval “of either two inactive Charters, which were previously held by Stewart Haas Racing.” NASCAR previously contended that it could sell the two charters owned an operated by 23XI and FRM — one charter apiece — because 23XI and FRM weren’t charter teams. The motorsport sanctioning body states it will not do that.

— And finally, NASCAR asserts that “it will not issue, sell, convey or lease more than four additional charters for the 2026 Cup Series season.”

“NASCAR voluntarily takes these steps in response to address the Court’s concerns about the potential for a proposed temporary path forward pending trial and to address the Court’s concerns about the potential for the creation of juror bias shortly prior to selecting a jury for trial,” the filing reads. “NASCAR prefers to focus on litigating the merits before the jury at trial.”

The trial is set for December. NASCAR’s lawyer, Chris Yates, has previously told The Charlotte Observer that there is “no likely path” to settling this lawsuit out of court.

The filing states that there are currently 30 active NASCAR Cup Series charters and two inactive Cup Series charters. The 30 active are owned by the 13 race teams that signed the charter agreement in September that went into effect for the 2025 season; this does not include 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports — the two teams that declined to sign the charter agreement in September and thereafter sued NASCAR in October on the grounds that it was a monopoly.

23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports compete with three Cup cars each, full-time. 23XI, owned by sports icon Michael Jordan and Cup driver Denny Hamlin, had two in 2024 and purchased one from Stewart-Haas Racing upon the race team’s disbanding last year. The same is true for Front Row Motorsports, which is owned by entrepreneur Bob Jenkins.

Thursday, representation from the suing teams and from NASCAR had an acrimonious hearing in Uptown Charlotte — one replete with salacious internal messages. Judge Bell presided over the hearing and reportedly encouraged both sides to settle on the preliminary injunction matter prior to dealing out his ruling next week.

At the hearing, the two Cup teams were hoping to have their preliminary injunction request granted — a request that would effectively let them race as chartered members even though they elected to not sign the charter agreement in September. They are asking for such an injunction because they need the benefits and protections a Cup chartered team has — guaranteed entry in every race, a guaranteed slice of each race’s purse and more — while the lawsuit persists. The teams contend they have a high likelihood of success based on the merits of the case, and if they have to run as “open teams” in the interim, they will endure “irreparable harm.”

“In light of its voluntary commitments to limit its ability to bring new entrants into the sport, NASCAR respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction on the grounds that it is moot, or in the alternative, that Plaintiffs face no irreparable harm,” the filing reads.

NASCAR also stated in the filing that it provided notice to the teams’ counsel by Friday at noon, and that the legal team conferred via phone and email. The NASCAR counsel included the teams’ position on these voluntary commitments in this brief.

“Plaintiffs do not agree that Defendants’ notice and representations moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” the filing reads. “Plaintiffs further do not agree that Defendants’ notice and representations demonstrate Plaintiffs face no irreparable harm.

“Plaintiffs will provide their position to the Court on Defendants’ notice and representations on September 2, 2025.”

The NASCAR Cup Series playoffs begin this weekend at Darlington Raceway in South Carolina.

©2025 The Charlotte Observer. Visit charlotteobserver.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.