America 250 Meets 40 U.S.C.: IndyCar at the Capitol

The United States is celebrating the 250^th anniversary of American independence with a year-long “America 250” slate of events. This past January, President Donal Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to work with IndyCar, America’s premier open-wheel auto racing series, to stage a street race in Washington D.C. Dubbed the “Freedom 250,” the event would feature sponsor-laden Indy cars racing past the Capitol and the National Mall as a marquee centerpiece of the America 250 celebration. The race weekend is scheduled to take place from August 21^st to 23^rd and was a last-minute addition to the 2026 schedule. The official track layout was recently revealed, and its unveiling has already triggered backlash from some fans who see the compact, roughly 1.7-mile street circuit as “boring,” but it may be better understood as a legal compromise.

The tension is not about the announced course itself, which runs along public streets around the National Mall rather than through the statutorily defined Capitol Grounds. The tension is more prospective, as federal law has long prohibited commercial advertising on U.S. Capitol Grounds, and the sheer proximity of the race route raises genuine questions about how much of IndyCar’s commercial identity can travel with it. This is an obvious issue and logistics challenge for a series whose economic model is built on turning cars, pit boxes, and temporary infrastructure into rolling billboards.

Section 5104 of Title 40 of the U.S. Code governs unlawful activities on the U.S. Capitol and its grounds. Among other things, the statute explicitly restricts commercial activity on Capitol Grounds. Under subsection 5104(c), individuals are prohibited from offering any item for sale, displaying “sign, placard, or other form of advertising,” or soliciting fares, aims, subscriptions, or contributions on Capitol Grounds, with the U.S. Capitol Police identitifed as the primary enforcement authority.

Capitol Police guidance clarifies that not all signs and placards are banned, only those that constitute advertising. Advocacy or informational signage related to demonstrations may be allowed, while commercial branding and sponsorship signage are categorically off-limits absent a specific legal exception.

For legal purposes, “Capitol Grounds” is defined quite specifically in federal law. One provision explains that the United States Capitol Grounds comprises all squares, reservations, streets, roadways, walks, and other areas as defined on a map entitled "Map showing areas comprising United States Capitol Grounds," dated June 25, 1946, approved by the Architect of the Capitol, and recorded in the Office of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia in book 127, page 8, including all additions added by law after June 25, 1946. Other statutory text and historical notes elaborate that particular streets and parcels around the Capitol, Supreme Court, Library of Congress, Botanic Garden, House and Senate office buildings, and related facilities are expressly declared to be part of the Capitol Grounds, sometimes “to the face of the curbs contiguous to such squares.” The Freedom 250 circuit runs along Pennsylvania Avenue, Independence Avenue, and 7^th Street. All of these are public roads that do not fall within that mapped footprint.

Like most top-level motorsports, IndyCar is commercially saturated. Cars, driver suits, pit equipment, barriers, and gantries are covered in sponsor logos, and sponsorship revenue accounts for an estimated 60-70% of team budgets, with teams generating between $6 million and $14 million per season from commercial partners. Temporary trackside signage is sold as a revenue stream for both the series and its teams. A “clean” race without visible corporate branding is, in practical terms, a nonstarter for a championship whose economics depend on sponsor exposure. Staging the race in the shadow of the Capitol forces a choice. IndyCar can either strip away much of the commercial signage that keeps the series afloat, or potentially test the limits of a statutory framework designed to keep Capitol Grounds free from this sort of advertising.

The framework raises a threshold question: what does it actually mean, in practice, for something to occur “on” Capitol Grounds? Because the statutory definition is fairly broad, it is not enough to simply confirm that the racing surface itself lies outside the mapped boundary. If any branded temporary infrastructure were placed on a street or plaza that falls within that footprint, an argument that sponsor-laden signage was being “displayed” on Capitol Grounds would write itself. Even if organizers thread the needle so that the racing surface technically remains outside the boundary while the Capitol looms in the background, one may argue that the spirit of the advertising ban could still be invoked.

This is where track design and legal risk management intersect. A conservative approach would keep the entire racing operation (cars, pits, grandstands, branded barriers) off any parcel clearly designated as part of the Grounds, even if it dulls the visual drama. A more aggressive strategy might rely on narrow readings of “displaying” advertising, or on distinctions between static signage placed on the Grounds and moving cars passing through shared rights of way, to argue that the race does not trigger the core prohibition. Either way, the statutory language and the mapped boundaries of the Grounds are not abstractions; rather, they are constraints that shape where IndyCar can physically go and how much of its commercial identity it can bring with it.

President Trump’s executive order does not make the underlying tension disappear. It directs federal agencies to work with IndyCar to deliver a Washington street race for America 250, but it cannot unilaterally amend or override Congress’s advertising ban. At most, it can instruct agencies to look for workarounds. This would be a route that skirts the legal perimeter of the Grounds, “clean zones” where logos are covered or removed, or proposed legislation creating a narrow, time-limited exception for America 250 programming. Each option trades off something, whether that is sponsor value, on-screen spectacle, or statutory clarity. In addition, each invites its own set of legal questions about whether the Capitol is being treated as civic space or commercial canvas.

With all of this in mind, the Freedom 250 presents an interesting case study. It is hard not to be swept up by the idea of Indy cars thundering past historic landmarks in the nation’s capital, like a living American-themed postcard. It would be a special kind of spectacle that channels genuine patriotism into a shared national moment of celebration. However, the league and its public partners will have to show that they can celebrate American innovation and exceptionalism without turning the symbol of representative government – meant to belong to the citizens – into a billboard-laden backdrop. Whatever the final layout looks like, and whatever mix of branding ultimately appears on race weekend, the underlying conflict between IndyCar’s branding and the Capitol Grounds advertising ban will remain a useful example of how sports can turn questions of venue and visibility into questions of law.

Calvin Holle is a 3L at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.  He can be found on LinkedIn and X.