U.S. EDITIONTHEWEEKLYOBSERVER.COM

HOME  /  US  /  MINNEAPOLIS

US · MINNEAPOLIS

Musk's xAI Begs Appeals Court to Pause Minnesota's AI 'Nudify' Ban After Two Straight Losses

After a federal judge twice refused to block the law, Elon Musk's xAI is asking the Eighth Circuit for an emergency injunction while its First Amendment fight plays out.

OS

BY OBSERVER STAFF

The Weekly Observer

OCT 4, 2026 · 4 MIN READ
fXinEMAIL
Musk's xAI Begs Appeals Court to Pause Minnesota's AI 'Nudify' Ban After Two Straight Losses
The Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul. File photo by Fibonacci Blue / Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company xAI has asked a federal appeals court to pause enforcement of a Minnesota law banning AI-generated 'nudification' images, after losing twice at the district court level.

A federal judge in Minnesota denied xAI's first request for a preliminary injunction on July 31, and denied it again on September 4, ruling that the company had waited too long to sue and failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm if the law stayed in effect. xAI filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that same day.

What the Law Actually Does

The statute, known as HF 1606, bars anyone who owns or controls a website, app or piece of software from letting users 'nudify' or otherwise sexually alter images of real people using AI. It passed the Minnesota Legislature by a near-unanimous 132-1 in the House and 65-0 in the Senate, according to the Minnesota Attorney General's office, and took effect in August.

THE COMPANY WAITED THREE MONTHS AFTER THE LAW WAS SIGNED TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION

In its latest filing, captioned X.AI LLC v. Keith Ellison, the company is seeking what's known as an injunction pending appeal — asking the Eighth Circuit to block Attorney General Keith Ellison from enforcing the law against xAI while the broader constitutional challenge winds through the courts. The appellate panel must now weigh whether xAI has shown a strong enough likelihood of success on its free-speech claim to justify the pause.

The district court had already found that the law's lopsided, bipartisan passage and the harms it was designed to prevent tipped the balance of interests toward the state. Minnesota's attorney general has defended the law as a narrowly targeted response to a specific, documented harm rather than a broad speech restriction.

SHARE THIS STORY