8th Circuit blocks Minnesota's AI nudification ban for now in xAI's lawsuit
The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday put Minnesota's anti-nudification law on hold while xAI argues the measure violates the First Amendment; a lower court had refused emergency relief last month.
States are writing first-in-the-nation rules for nude deepfakes while model makers race to court. One Friday order from St. Louis keeps Minnesota's ban off the books for now — and puts Grok Imagine's blockers and First Amendment claims on the national stage.
On Friday, 2 October 2026, Reuters reported from Washington that Elon Musk’s xAI persuaded a U.S. federal appeals court to halt Minnesota’s first-in-the-nation ban on AI-generated fake nude images. The company is pursuing a lawsuit alleging that the law is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional, in that sentence, means xAI says the law breaks the U.S. Constitution. The wire credits reporting to Mike Scarcella and editing to David Bario and David Gregorio. SRN News carries the item and dates it Friday, Oct. 2, 2026. That page does not print an hour beside the date. MPR News carries the same Reuters wire and stamps October 2, 2026, 5:08 p.m. The MPR page does not print a time zone next to that clock. Those lines are Reuters.
What the appeals court did. The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its order, put the law on hold for now and granted xAI’s request for an injunction. An injunction, here, is a court order that stops a law from being enforced while a case continues. On hold for now is a temporary stay. The wire does not print a vote, and it does not give the hold an end date. A lower-court judge last month had rejected Musk’s bid for an order stopping the law. Those lines are Reuters.
What the law covers. Minnesota’s anti-“nudification” law took effect on August 1. Nudification, in this law, means making a realistic image of an intimate body part that is not shown in an original photo of an identifiable individual. Identifiable means a real person someone could recognize. The law prohibits website operators, software developers, and others from allowing users to create those images. A website operator runs the site. A software developer builds the program. Those lines are Reuters.
The claim xAI is pressing. The company alleges the measure restricts free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution. Free speech, in that sentence, is the First Amendment. Allege means that is xAI’s argument in the lawsuit. It is not a finding that the law is unconstitutional. The order Reuters describes holds the law while that case continues. Those lines are Reuters.
What the lower court did last month. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ruled that xAI had not shown it would suffer irreparable harm while challenging the law, and that the company had waited too long to seek emergency relief. Irreparable harm means harm a later win would not undo. Emergency relief is the fast order that would have stopped the law before the full case was heard. Those lines are Reuters. The Friday wire says last month. It does not print the day of that ruling.
What xAI argued on the appeal. The company disputed the judge’s finding that it delayed bringing suit. It also said its Grok Imagine tool includes “rigorous protections” against creating nudified or sexualized images of real people. Grok Imagine is xAI’s image tool. A nudified image, in that phrase, is a fake nude of a real person. Sexualized means the picture is sexual. Rigorous protections are the company’s words for limits built into the tool. Those lines are Reuters, from xAI’s appeal.
The suits against users. xAI has begun suing users it alleges are evading Grok’s technological blockers to create sexual images of people without their consent. A blocker is a technical limit meant to stop the tool from making those images. Evading means getting around that limit. Consent means the person in the image agreed. Allege, here, means that is xAI’s claim in those suits. It is not a court finding that the users did it. Those lines are Reuters. The wire does not print how many users, or the names of those cases.
What Minnesota told the appeals court. The state urged the court not to block the law. Minnesota said it adopted the measure this year to combat the spread of what it called a “staggering amount (of) child sexual abuse material that AI products like Grok Imagine generate.” Child sexual abuse material is illegal sexual imagery of children. The parenthetical “of” is how Reuters prints the state’s phrase. Those lines are Reuters, from Minnesota.
Who had not spoken when the wire moved. Minnesota and xAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment. That line is Reuters.
The picture is a cream card. A dark navy seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sits in the center. The seal shows an eagle, a shield, an olive branch, and arrows, with the court’s name around the ring. Under the seal the type reads 8th Circuit, Minnesota, and AI nudification ban. A small black Grok mark sits beside the word GROK. A line along the bottom reads Temporary stay and xAI lawsuit. The frame does not print a calendar date. It is a graphic of the court and the company in the Reuters report. It is not a photograph of the order, and it is not the Getty illustration of a phone showing the Grok app that MPR runs with the wire.
In plain terms, Reuters reported on Friday, from Washington, that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put Minnesota’s ban on AI-generated fake nude images of identifiable people on hold for now. The law took effect August 1. It bars website operators, software developers, and others from letting users create a realistic intimate body part that was not in the original photo. xAI says that rule restricts free speech. Judge Donovan Frank last month refused an emergency order, finding no irreparable harm and too long a wait. On appeal, xAI disputed the delay, said Grok Imagine has rigorous protections against nudified or sexualized images of real people, and has begun suing users it says are getting around those blockers. Minnesota asked the appeals court to leave the law in place, pointing to child sexual abuse material it says tools like Grok Imagine generate. Neither side had commented when the wire moved. The report does not print a vote or an end date for the hold.