Michael Jordan sues NASCAR but is dealt major legal blow just 2 days before his driver competes in Cup Series championship



Michael Jordan's racing team was dealt a painful blow by a United States district judge who denied his team's request for an injunction just before the culmination of the 2024 NASCAR season.

Jordan, who co-owns 23XI Racing with three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin, was joined by Front Row Motorsports in a suit against NASCAR and its chairman. The lawsuit claimed NASCAR gave all Cup Series teams a last-minute offer in September; but both teams refused to sign the offer on antitrust grounds.

Judge Whitney summarized much of the claims by the racing teams as being speculative and not definitive.

As reported by the New York Post, the racing team owners claimed NASCAR's charter system limits competition by binding teams to the series, its tracks, and suppliers in an unfair manner.

The lawsuit said Chairman Jim France and NASCAR are "monopolistic bullies."

The teams wanted the court to grant an injunction that would release them from a clause in the NASCAR charter that prevents them from suing its sanctioning body. However, U.S. District Judge Frank D. Whitney ruled mid-day Friday that the two racing teams did not meet the burden required to be granted the injunction.

The injunction would have allowed the teams to compete as usual (as chartered teams) while still suing NASCAR. Instead, they may now have to compete as "open" teams, which does not guarantee them a spot in NASCAR races and limits their revenue. This could cause drivers and sponsors to leave the teams because they are not privy to those guarantees.

As reported by NBC Sports, the judge decided that the plaintiffs did prove they would suffer "irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted."

Judge Whitney summarized much of the claims by the racing teams as being speculative and not definitive.

"Although Plaintiffs have alleged that they will face a risk of irreparable harm, they have not sufficiently alleged present, immediate, urgent irreparable harm, but rather only speculative, possible harm," the judge wrote.

The judge also noted that the teams "alleged a possibility" that they will lose sponsorship agreements, citing that this wording is "too speculative."

The judge further wrote that the teams only "allege that their drivers may leave if Plaintiffs compete as open teams."

"Presently, this harm is too speculative to merit a preliminary injunction."

The judge went on, "Plaintiffs have not alleged that their business cannot survive without a preliminary injunction. Instead, they allege that their businesses may not survive without a preliminary injunction."

The ruling went on similarly about "potential" losses and future business losses being "merely speculative."

"As such, this speculative harm does not warrant the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction," he concluded.

The ruling comes just two days before the NASCAR Cup Series Championship in Phoenix on Sunday.

Four drivers are headed into the final race in a tie for first place in the Cup Series standings; one of whom is the No. 45 car driven by Tyler Reddick for Jordan's 23XI team.

23XI's other driver, No. 23 Bubba Wallace, is in 18th place. Both drive Toyotas.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Tuesday’s election will be a referendum on American capitalism



Will Joe Biden succeed in undermining the pillars of American capitalism? The Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 13 that the November election could decide whether Biden’s push to break up American companies simply for being “big” will succeed in the long run.

The Journal is correct. This election isn’t just a referendum on what the Biden-Harris administration has done to entrepreneurs over the past four years; it’s also a vote on the future of America’s economy. Another four years of the status quo could turn Biden’s unconventional policies into economic and legal precedents, causing lasting damage.

Once-successful companies are closing stores and laying off workers due to the unprecedented anti-business environment fostered by this White House.

This issue centers on how, after taking office, Biden and Harris ensured the confirmation of Lina Khan, a progressive favorite, to lead the Federal Trade Commission. Khan quickly reversed 40 years of consensus on antitrust policy by overturning the consumer welfare standard, which had limited government intervention in the economy to cases where consumers faced harm. The Department of Justice, which shares antitrust enforcement with the FTC, soon followed her lead.

Under the Biden-Harris administration’s aggressive approach to antitrust, businesses can now be regulated, broken up, or even dissolved for reasons determined by the White House, regardless of whether they lower consumer prices or increase competition. Over the past four years, this approach has led to challenges against companies for simply being “too big.”

The good news is that the Biden-Harris administration has lost nearly every corporate challenge it initiated, as courts recognize its anti-capitalism agenda lacks legal grounding and is politically motivated. However, these challenges have still cost thousands of jobs and discouraged businesses from pursuing innovation.

When the Biden-Harris administration blocked mergers like Spirit Airlines-JetBlue and Roomba-Amazon, the results were disastrous. Roomba lost jobs and declared bankruptcy, while Spirit now teeters on insolvency due to the administration’s actions.

Despite these failures, Biden and Harris continue their push, as shown by a late September lawsuit against Visa.

In its latest campaign against capitalism, the Biden-Harris administration’s antitrust cops claim Visa’s debit market is an unchecked monopoly raising consumer prices. But this is far from true. Consumers have a wide range of choices, not only with other debit cards but also through peer-to-peer payment networks like Apple Pay, Cash App, and Venmo.

Payment volumes and the number of competitors in this space continue to rise steadily. In a capitalist economy, being a popular choice among consumers isn’t a crime, but the administration is acting as if it is.

By overturning the consumer welfare standard, the Biden-Harris administration has created the worst business climate since the Carter era. Once-successful companies — even large chains like 7-Eleven and Walgreens — are closing stores and laying off workers due to the unprecedented anti-business environment fostered by this White House.

With the November election now in clear view, voters face a crucial decision.

The Wall Street Journal noted that “it is a near certainty that [Khan’s] authority will end if Donald Trump wins the presidency, as many in the GOP favor more latitude for mergers and view Khan as too tough on business.”

Voters must make the right choice, as the continuation of this anti-business agenda could lead to incalculable long-term consequences for the free market.

As voters stand at this crossroads, the choice is clear. Will they back a government that prioritizes regulation over innovation, or will they support policies that encourage free markets and allow businesses to thrive?

The costs of staying the current course are evident — job losses, higher prices, and economic stagnation. A change in direction, however, could promise economic freedom, growth, and prosperity.

We’ll have the answer soon, but one thing is clear: The current path of overregulation and government interference is unsustainable. It’s time to empower businesses, foster competition, and create an environment where innovation can flourish for all Americans.

Let’s hope voters agree.

X Sues Global Advertising Giants For Coordinating ‘Illegal’ Boycott Designed To Punish Free Speech

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Screenshot-2024-08-06-at-12.32.15 PM-e1722965558306-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Screenshot-2024-08-06-at-12.32.15%5Cu202fPM-e1722965558306-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]The suit follows a congressional report alleging GARM violated antitrust laws by trying to demonetize anyone it deemed guilty of wrongthink.

In Major Antitrust Case, Judge Finds Google’s Search And Ads Monopolies Illegal

The judge ruled that Google's anticompetitive practices illegally ‘puts rivals in no position to compete' with their ad revenue scheme.

DOJ claims Google deleted chat logs as antitrust case comes to a close



The Department of Justice has alleged that Google implemented a policy that encouraged employees to delete chat logs and other discussions around certain business practices during its investigation, according to Tech Spot.

The business practices in question have to do with revenue-sharing agreements and mobile application distribution deals.

Government lawyers noted that these internal conversations could have revealed Google's attempt to illegally leave out rivals and maintain its dominion as the top company in the search market.

According to Mint, antitrust enforcers have suggested that Google has kept a monopoly over online search and related advertising.

Obama-appointed Judge Amit Mehta did not hold back when addressing Google's legal team, suggesting that he was taken aback by the major tech company's deliberate effort to destroy records. "Google's document retention policy leaves a lot to be desired," he said on Friday.

Google's attorney Colette Connor told the judge that DOJ should have known about Google's policy well before the government agency challenged the company's conduct.

Connor also noted that Google's conduct could not be sanctioned because there is no evidence that any of the missing chat logs would have shed new light on the case.

The question still remains as to why Google employees allegedly deleted chat logs while under investigation.

In January 2023, the DOJ released a statement, saying:

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the complaint alleges that Google monopolizes key digital advertising technologies, collectively referred to as the “ad tech stack,” that website publishers depend on to sell ads and that advertisers rely on to buy ads and reach potential customers. Website publishers use ad tech tools to generate advertising revenue that supports the creation and maintenance of a vibrant open web, providing the public with unprecedented access to ideas, artistic expression, information, goods, and services. Through this monopolization lawsuit, the Justice Department and state Attorneys General seek to restore competition in these important markets and obtain equitable and monetary relief on behalf of the American public.

At the time, Attorney General Merrick Garland said: "Today’s complaint alleges that Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful conduct to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies."

“No matter the industry and no matter the company, the Justice Department will vigorously enforce our antitrust laws to protect consumers, safeguard competition, and ensure economic fairness and opportunity for all.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Free-Market Conservatives Should Ignore Biden’s Antitrust Siren Song

Antitrust agencies are undermining U.S. economic and security interests without any proof that companies like Amazon are harming consumers.

The Massive Bipartisan Google Antitrust Suit Is A Fight For The Future Of The Internet

The Google antitrust case is about nothing less than the future of the internet and consumers' data and privacy.

Why Free-Market Conservatives Should Cheer The Amazon Antitrust Suit

By taking Amazon’s anti-competitive behavior head-on, the FTC has an opportunity to give small businesses a fighting chance.

6 Takeaways From The Biden Admin’s Court Quest To Keep Censoring Americans Online

In this major case likely to hit the U.S. Supreme Court, the Biden administration is fighting to stop American citizens from sharing messages government officials don't like.

House Republicans Probe Wall Street’s ESG Pioneers Over Potential Antitrust Violations

'When companies agree to work together to ... advance environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals, this coordinated behavior may violate the antitrust laws,' Republicans wrote.