KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Denny Hamlin said Saturday that he remains “pretty confident” in the case brought by his 23XI Racing, co-owned by the veteran driver and retired NBA great Michael Jordan, and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR alleging antitrust violations.

Hamlin spoke one day after a three-judge federal appellate panel indicated it might overturn an injunction that allows 23XI and Front Row to race as chartered teams, even as their lawsuit against the stock car series plays out in court.

“You know, they’re telling me kind of what’s going on. I didn’t get to hear it live or anything like that,” Hamlin said after qualifying 14th for Sunday’s race at Kansas Speedway. “But we’re overall pretty confident in our case.”

The teams filed the antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR on Oct. 2 in the Western District of North Carolina, arguing that the series bullied teams into signing charter agreements — essentially franchise deals — that make it difficult to compete financially.

Those were the only two holdouts of 15 charter-holding teams that refused to sign the agreements in September.

The most recent extension of the charters lasts until 2031, matching the current media rights deal. Perhaps the biggest benefit of them is that they guarantee 36 of the 40 spots available in each NASCAR race to teams that own them.

Overturning the injunction would leave 23XI and Front Row racing as “open teams,” meaning they would have to qualify at every Cup Series event. But there are only four open spots, and 23XI had four cars at Kansas this week – Bubba Wallace, Riley Herbst, Tyler Reddick and Corey Heim – and Front Row had three with Noah Gragson, Zane Smith and Todd Gilliland.

“You know, the judges haven’t made any kind of ruling,” Hamlin said, “so until they do, then we’re going to stay status quo.”

NASCAR attorney Chris Yates had argued the injunction, granted in December by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell, forced the series into an unwanted relationship with unwilling partners, and that it harms other teams because they earn less money. He also said that the teams should not have the benefits of the charter system they are suing to overturn.

“There’s no other place to compete,” countered Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney representing 23XI and Front Row, noting overturning the injunction will cause tremendous damage to the teams, potentially including the loss of drivers and sponsors.

“It will cause havoc to overturn this injunction in the middle of the season,” Kessler said.

There is a trial date set for December, and judge Steven Agee urged the sides to meet for mediation — previously ordered by a lower court — to attempt to resolve the dispute over the injunction. But that seems unlikely.

“We’re not going to rewrite the charter,” Yates told the judges.

RICHMOND, Va. — A three-judge federal appellate panel indicated Friday it might overturn an injunction that allows 23XI Racing, co-owned by retired NBA great Michael Jordan and veteran driver Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports to race as chartered teams in NASCAR this season while the two teams sue the stock car series over alleged antitrust violations.

NASCAR attorney Chris Yates argued the injunction, granted in December by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell of the Western District of North Carolina, forced the series into an unwanted relationship with unwilling partners, and that it harms other teams because they earn less money.

Yates said the district court broke precedent by granting the injunction, saying the “release” clause in the charter contracts forbidding the teams from suing is “common.” He argued, essentially, that the teams should not have the benefits of the charter system they are suing to overturn.

Overturning the injunction would leave the two organizations able to race but without any of the perks of being chartered, including guaranteed weekly revenue. They would also have to qualify at every Cup Series event to make the field, which currently has only four open spots each week; 23XI and Front Row are each running three cars in Cup this season.

Judges Steven Agee, Paul Niemeyer and Stephanie Thacker, at multiple points during the 50-minute hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, pushed back on the argument made by plaintiff’s attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who accused NASCAR of being a monopoly.

“There’s no other place to compete,” Kessler told the judges, later noting that overturning the injunction would cause tremendous damage to the two teams, which could lose drivers and sponsors. “It will cause havoc to overturn this injunction in the middle of the season.”

The teams filed the antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR on Oct. 2 in the Western District of North Carolina, arguing that the series bullied teams into signing new charters that make it difficult to compete financially. That came after two years of failed negotiations on new charter agreements, which is NASCAR’s equivalent of franchise deals.

23XI – co-owned by Jordan, Hamlin and Curtis Polk, a longtime Jordan business partner – and Front Row Motorsports, were the only two out of 15 charter-holding teams that refused to sign new agreements in September.

The charters, which teams originally signed before the 2016 season, have twice been extended. The most recent extension runs until 2031, matching the current media rights deal. It guarantees that 36 of the 40 available spots in weekly races will go to teams holding charters.

The judges expressed agreement with Yates’s argument that the district court had erred in issuing the injunction allowing the teams to race, because it mandated they sign the NASCAR charter but eliminated the contract’s release.

“It seems you want to have your cake and eat it, too,” Niemeyer told Kessler.

At another point, the judge pointedly told Kessler that if the teams want to race, they should sign the charter.

Yates contended that forcing an unwanted relationship between NASCAR and the two teams “harms NASCAR and other racing teams.” He said that more chartered teams would earn more money if not for the injunction and noted that the two teams are being “given the benefits of a contract they rejected.”

Kessler argued that even if the district court’s reasoning was flawed, other evidence should lead the circuit court to uphold the injunction. Niemayer disagreed.

“The court wanted you to be able to race but without a contract,” he said.

A trial date is set for December and Agee strongly urged the sides to meet for mediation – previously ordered by a lower court – to attempt to resolve the dispute over the injunction.

“It’ll be a very interesting trial,” Agee said with a wry smile.

The prospect of successful mediation seems unlikely. Yates told the judges: “We’re not going to rewrite the charter.”

The combination of full prisons and tight public finances has forced the government to urgently rethink its approach.

Top of the agenda for an overhaul are short sentences, which look set to give way to more community rehabilitation.

The cost argument is clear – prison is expensive. It’s around £60,000 per person per year compared to community sentences at roughly £4,500 a year.

But it’s not just saving money that is driving the change.

Research shows short custodial terms, especially for first-time offenders, can do more harm than good, compounding criminal behaviour rather than acting as a deterrent.

This is certainly the case for Charlie, who describes herself as a former “junkie, shoplifter from Leeds” and spoke to Sky News at Preston probation centre.

She was first sent down as a teenager and has been in and out of prison ever since. She says her experience behind bars exacerbated her drug use.

“In prison, I would never get clean. It’s easy, to be honest, I used to take them in myself,” she says. “I was just in a cycle of getting released, homeless, and going straight back into trap houses, drug houses, and that cycle needs to be broken.”

Eventually, she turned her life around after a court offered her drug treatment at a rehab facility.

She says that after decades of addiction and criminality, one judge’s decision was the turning point.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

“That was the moment that changed my life and I just want more judges to give more people that chance.”

Also at Preston probation centre, but on the other side of the process, is probation officer Bex, who is also sceptical about short sentences.

“They disrupt people’s lives,” she says. “So, people might lose housing because they’ve gone to prison… they come out homeless and may return to drug use and reoffending.”

Read more from Sky News:
Care homes face ban on overseas recruitment
Woman reveals impact of little-known disorder

Bex has seen first-hand the value of alternative routes out of crime.

“A lot of the people we work with have had really disjointed lives. It takes a long time for them to trust someone, and there’s some really brilliant work that goes on every single day here that changes lives.”

It’s people like Bex and Charlie, and places like Preston probation centre, that are at the heart of the government’s change in direction.