Eighth Circuit blocks Minnesota AI nudification law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, based in St. Louis, Missouri, granted xAI LLC an injunction pending appeal on October 2, 2026, temporarily blocking enforcement of Minnesota's AI "nudification" law Reuters.

The case, X.AI LLC v. Keith Ellison (Eighth Circuit docket No. 26-2806), challenges a statute that took effect on August 1, 2026. Minnesota's law prohibits website operators, software developers, and others from allowing users to create realistic images depicting an intimate body part that was not shown in an original photograph of an identifiable individual Reuters.

The Injunction and Next Steps

The Eighth Circuit's order placed the law "on hold for now" while xAI pursues its appeal GalvNews. The ruling is an interim injunction and does not finally determine whether the statute is constitutional. xAI had challenged the law as unconstitutional after a lower court declined to halt enforcement.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's office said it was "disappointed" by the appellate ruling and stated it would defend the law as xAI's appeal proceeds Reuters.

Penalties and Scope

The law reportedly authorizes a $500,000 civil penalty per violation for covered technology companies and permits victims to seek damages from platform owners GovTech. The statute's broad scope covers any entity that knowingly allows its service to be used to generate non-consensual intimate imagery of identifiable individuals.

Litigation Trajectory

The Eighth Circuit's grant of the injunction signals the appellate panel may have found at least serious questions regarding xAI's First Amendment arguments or the law's vagueness and overbreadth concerns. However, the temporary block does not resolve the underlying constitutional dispute. The case now proceeds through the appellate process, with both sides preparing written briefs and oral argument potentially scheduled in the coming months.

This ruling is significant for the AI industry, as other states have considered or enacted similar legislation targeting generative models used to create non-consensual intimate imagery. The Eighth Circuit's willingness to pause enforcement suggests courts may scrutinize such laws under heightened constitutional standards, particularly when they regulate speech or expression generated by software.