The Pulse
Eighth Circuit Pauses Minnesota’s AI Nudification Ban in xAI Appeal
The Eighth Circuit has put Minnesota’s AI nudification ban on hold while xAI appeals a lower court ruling that denied its request to block the law. The appeals court’s order does not resolve xAI’s challenge to the statute under the First Am
AI.info Team · Written with AI ·
The Eighth Circuit has paused Minnesota’s AI nudification ban while xAI pursues a First Amendment challenge, reversing the practical effect of a lower court’s decision to leave the law in force. On October 2, the appeals court granted xAI an injunction pending appeal; the dispute over the law’s constitutionality remains unresolved. Minnesota says the statute addresses serious harms, while xAI argues it restricts constitutionally protected expression.
The appeals court grants xAI temporary relief
The St. Louis-based Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put the state law on hold for now after xAI asked for an injunction during its appeal. The ruling followed a September 4 decision by U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank, who denied the company’s request for a preliminary injunction. Reuters reported that the appeals court’s order grants xAI interim relief as the appeal proceeds; it does not decide the First Amendment merits.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office said it was disappointed and would continue defending the statute.
“Minnesota’s nudification ban outlaws AI technology products from generating sexual images that harm and harass people in the vilest way possible,” Ellison spokesperson John Stiles said.
What Minnesota’s law prohibits
The statute, which took effect August 1, bars people who own or control websites, apps, software or other services from allowing users to use them to “nudify” an image or video, or from doing so for a user. The law defines nudification as altering or generating an image of an identifiable person so it realistically depicts an intimate part absent from the original image. It exempts services that require users to have the technical skill to perform the alteration.
Minnesota can seek civil penalties of up to $500,000 for each violation, as well as other remedies, under the law. The statute applies to services that enable the relevant image generation, rather than only to people who create or distribute a particular image.
Frank’s ruling focused on delay
Frank denied xAI’s request after finding that the company had waited nearly three months after the law was signed before filing its lawsuit, then sought emergency relief three days before the statute took effect. He wrote that if xAI genuinely feared irreparable harm, he would have expected it to act more quickly. The appeals court’s order pauses enforcement while appellate review continues.
xAI disputed the judge’s finding that it delayed bringing suit. The company’s appeal argues that the law restricts speech protected by the Constitution. Minnesota urged the appeals court not to block the statute and said it adopted the measure to address the spread of sexual images generated using AI.
Grok Imagine sits at the center of the dispute
The case concerns Grok Imagine, xAI’s image and video generation tool. In its appeal, xAI said the tool includes protections against creating nudified or sexualized images of real people. Reuters also reported that xAI has begun suing users it alleges are evading Grok’s technological blockers to create sexual images of people without their consent.
xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the appeals court’s ruling, Reuters reported. The order changes the law’s status while appellate review continues, but it does not settle the competing claims about free speech and the harms Minnesota says the statute is designed to prevent.