Minnesota’s law restricting artificial-intelligence tools that create fake nude images remains in force after a federal judge declined to grant xAI a preliminary injunction.
The September 4, 2026 ruling is an interim decision in an ongoing constitutional dispute. It does not finally resolve whether the law is valid, and xAI has said it plans to appeal.
What the AI nudification ban covers
The law targets services that digitally alter images or video to depict an identifiable person’s intimate body parts without consent. Supporters say the measure responds to non-consensual sexual imagery, harassment and risks involving children.
Reuters reported that the law took effect on August 1. It can expose providers to substantial civil liability, which is one reason the technology company sought to stop enforcement while its lawsuit proceeds.
xAI’s constitutional argument
xAI argues that Minnesota’s restrictions are overly broad and violate the First Amendment. The company has said it already prohibits abusive uses of its systems and has implemented technical restrictions.
Minnesota maintains that the statute regulates harmful conduct and narrowly addresses the production and access of non-consensual sexual imagery. Attorney General Keith Ellison has defended the measure as a bipartisan protection for victims.
What the judge decided
US District Judge Donovan Frank concluded that xAI had not shown the immediate harm required for preliminary relief. The court acknowledged that the case raises difficult questions at the intersection of speech, software and rapidly changing AI capabilities.
A refusal to issue an injunction is not a final judgment on the merits. The law can remain enforceable while the court considers the broader claims, subject to any decision by the appeals court.
Why the case matters beyond Minnesota
Governments are testing different approaches to synthetic sexual imagery. Some laws focus on people who create or distribute deepfakes, while Minnesota’s measure also places responsibility on providers of enabling services.
The dispute could influence how courts distinguish expressive software from regulated product functions and how lawmakers design safeguards without capturing legitimate image editing.
What comes next
xAI’s expected appeal will be watched for guidance on the applicable constitutional standard. The underlying lawsuit can also continue even if an appellate court leaves the preliminary ruling unchanged.
For now, the verified position is limited: the law remains in effect, xAI’s request for interim relief was denied, and the final constitutional questions are unresolved.
