Eighth Circuit Grants xAI an Injunction Pending Appeal in the Minnesota Nudification Case

Eighth Circuit Grants xAI an Injunction Pending Appeal in the Minnesota Nudification Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted xAI an injunction pending appeal on October 2, 2026 in its challenge to Minnesota's AI nudification statute. The order is a single sentence. It gives no reasons, names no judges, and decides nothing about the First Amendment.

Information last verified on October 4, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: On October 2, 2026, in SpaceXAI LLC v. Keith M. Ellison, No. 26-2806 (8th Cir.), the Eighth Circuit granted the appellant's motion for an injunction pending appeal. The order is one sentence long and states no reasoning, no analysis and no merits holding. The motion the court granted asked the Eighth Circuit to bar the Attorney General from enforcing section 325E.91 against the appellant while the appeal proceeds; the order itself grants that motion without describing the relief's terms, and it does not reach the private civil action the statute gives a depicted individual. The appeal itself is still pending and briefing is under way, with the appellant's opening brief due October 29, 2026. No court has yet ruled on whether the statute is constitutional.

Jurisdiction scope: This is an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. The statute at issue is a Minnesota state law. The October 2 order resolves a motion in one case; because it contains no reasoning, it supplies no rule for any other case, and other states' synthetic-imagery statutes are unaffected by it.

What Happened

On October 2, 2026, the Eighth Circuit docketed an order in appeal No. 26-2806. The operative text is one line:

Appellant's motion for injunction pending appeal is granted.

The document is captioned SpaceXAI LLC v. Keith M. Ellison, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Minnesota, lists the First Amendment Lawyers Association and others as amici on behalf of the appellant, and identifies the appeal as taken from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 0:26-cv-03425. It is dated October 02, 2026, is marked "Order Entered at the Direction of the Court," and is signed by Susan E. Bindler, Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The docket records it as entered at 3:45 p.m.

That is the entire content of the ruling. There is no opinion, no discussion of the likelihood of success, no description of the relief's scope beyond granting the motion, and no judge identified by name. Readers should treat any account of what the Eighth Circuit "found" or "signaled" about the First Amendment with suspicion, because the order says nothing of the kind.

How the case got here

xAI sued Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in the District of Minnesota on July 27, 2026, before Judge Donovan W. Frank. On September 4, 2026 the district court denied xAI's motion for a preliminary injunction, resting on delay, irreparable harm and the balance of equities rather than on the constitutional question. xAI filed its notice of appeal the same day. Our earlier report on the complaint xAI filed in July covers the claims it pleaded.

The appeal was docketed on September 9, 2026 as No. 26-2806, with the nature of suit recorded as constitutionality of a state statute. The same day the court of appeals set a briefing schedule and received the originating court documents, which the docket describes as the memorandum opinion and order denying a preliminary injunction dated September 4, 2026 and the interlocutory notice of appeal of the same date.

On September 11, 2026, counsel for the appellant filed an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. Its exhibits included the district court's memorandum opinion at Dkt. 54 and, at Exhibit C, the district court's Dkt. 66 order denying a motion for an injunction pending appeal. That detail matters procedurally: Rule 8 generally requires a party to ask the district court first, and the appellate motion recorded that the district court had already said no.

The motion was fully briefed. Minnesota's Attorney General sought an extension and expedited handling on September 14, xAI opposed that request the same day, and the Attorney General replied on September 15. The state filed its response in opposition to the emergency motion on September 21, 2026, and xAI replied on September 28, 2026. On September 29 the court dismissed the extension motion as moot.

Two groups of amici lined up behind xAI's motion. On September 29, 2026 the court granted leave to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the First Amendment Lawyers Association and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, whose brief supporting the emergency motion was filed the same day. On October 2, 2026, about 50 minutes before the injunction order was entered on the docket, the clerk granted the Liberty Justice Center leave to appear as amicus, declined to file the brief submitted with its motion at that time, and allowed it to file within seven days of the appellant's opening brief.

The September 29 order also granted the appellant's motion to modify the caption, which is why the case now appears on the docket as SpaceXAI LLC v. Keith Ellison while earlier entries refer to X.AI LLC.

What the Law Actually Says

The challenged statute is 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 72, enacted as H.F. 1606 and coded as a new section, Minn. Stat. section 325E.91, titled "Prohibition on Nudification Technology." The session law was presented to the governor on May 6, 2026 and signed on May 7, 2026 at 9:14 a.m. Its effective-date clause reads: "This section is effective August 1, 2026, and applies to causes of action accruing on or after that date."

Subdivision 2 contains the operative prohibition. A person who owns or controls a website, application, software, program or other service must not "allow a user to access, download, or use" it "to nudify an image or video," and must not "nudify an image or video on behalf of a user." A separate paragraph bars advertising or promoting any such service.

The defined term does the work. Under subdivision 1, to "nudify" means that an image or video "is altered or generated to depict an intimate part not depicted in an original unaltered image or video of an identifiable individual," and that the result is "so realistic that a reasonable person would believe that the intimate part belongs to the identifiable individual." "Intimate part" takes its meaning from Minn. Stat. section 609.341, subdivision 5. An "identifiable individual" is one identifiable from the image itself or from personal information displayed with it.

Subdivision 3 carves out an exemption where the service "requires the technical skill of a user," which subdivision 1 defines as "substantial application of individualized technological or artistic skill and judgment by a human creator in directing, shaping, or controlling the output." On its face the exemption turns on how much human skill and judgment the service requires of the user. How far it reaches is contested: the appellant argues in its motion that section 325E.91 is facially overbroad, and no court has construed the exemption.

Enforcement runs on two tracks. Subdivision 4 gives a depicted individual a private civil action for compensatory damages up to three times actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees and other equitable relief. Subdivision 5 lets the Attorney General enforce the section under Minn. Stat. section 8.31 and sets "a civil penalty not to exceed $500,000 for each unlawful access, download, or use under subdivision 2." A later enactment, 2026 Minn. Laws ch. 124, art. 1, sec. 61, amended subdivision 5 only to redirect recovered penalties to the victims of crime account under section 299A.708; it left the prohibition and the penalty ceiling untouched. Subdivision 7 states that the section does not alter the liabilities and protections of 47 U.S.C. section 230 and must be construed consistently with federal law.

What Rule 8 relief is, and is not

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 governs this kind of motion. Rule 8(a)(1) says a party "must ordinarily move first in the district court" for, among other things, "an order suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction while an appeal is pending." Only then may the party go to the court of appeals, and Rule 8(a)(2)(A) requires the appellate motion either to show that moving first below would be impracticable or to "state that, a motion having been made, the district court denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested and state any reasons given by the district court for its action."

Rule 8(a)(2)(B) requires the motion to set out "the reasons for granting the relief requested and the facts relied on," supporting sworn statements, and the relevant parts of the record. Rule 8(a)(2)(D) provides that such a motion "normally will be considered by a panel of the court," with a single judge permitted only in an exceptional case where timing makes a panel impracticable.

Two consequences follow. First, relief under Rule 8 is temporary by design: it governs the period while an appeal is pending, and it dissolves or is superseded when the appeal is resolved. Second, the rule says nothing about the merits. A court can grant Rule 8 relief to hold the situation in place while it studies a hard question, and granting the motion is not a declaration that the challenged law is invalid. Because the Eighth Circuit wrote no reasons here, the public record does not show which considerations moved it.

One limit on what anyone can say about the order: it grants "Appellant's motion," and the relief therefore tracks what that motion requested. The motion's conclusion asked the court to "enter an injunction pending appeal barring the Attorney General from enforcing section 325E.91 against SpaceXAI." The order does not restate those terms or add any of its own. It is relief against the state's enforcement officer in this case, not a suspension of the statute, and the private civil action in subdivision 4 was never before the court.

What Happens Next

The appeal proceeds on the schedule the court set on September 9, 2026. That schedule set a transcript deadline of October 19, 2026, but the appellant filed a certificate of transcript on September 23, 2026 stating that no transcript is needed. The appendix and the appellant's opening brief are both due October 29, 2026. The Attorney General's brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellant's brief. The Liberty Justice Center may file its amicus brief within seven days of the appellant's opening brief.

The event that would turn this dispute into an actual First Amendment ruling is a merits decision from a panel of the Eighth Circuit after that briefing, and any argument the court schedules. Until then, the only appellate action on the record is a procedural order with no reasoning behind it.

In the district court, the underlying case remains open. As we reported at the preliminary-injunction stage, Minnesota's motion to dismiss was filed on August 19, 2026, and a September 1, 2026 order granted a joint motion staying briefing on it, with the response now keyed to the mandate in any appeal from the preliminary-injunction decision. For how the statute sits alongside the rest of the state's synthetic-media rules, see our page on Minnesota's deepfake statutes.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The distance between this order and the coverage of it is the story. A one-sentence grant with no opinion is routine in emergency motions practice, and it is also the single easiest document in federal litigation to over-read. Headlines saying a court "blocked" or "struck down" the Minnesota law describe an outcome the document does not contain. What the document contains is a decision to change who may enforce what while the judges take a longer look.

That distinction has practical consequences. A reasoned opinion would give other states drafting nudification bills something to work with: a view on whether the prohibition regulates conduct or speech, whether the technical-skill exemption saves it, whether a tool-level ban is meaningfully different from a ban on the resulting images. This order gives them none of that. Legislatures watching the case learn only that the statute's enforcement against this appellant is paused, which tells them nothing about how to draft.

It also matters for people the statute was written to protect. The law's private civil action in subdivision 4 belongs to the depicted individual, and the statute remains on the books. Nothing in a one-line order tells a Minnesota resident that the law has gone away, and nobody should read it that way. What the order does tell them is that the question is now genuinely contested at the appellate level, and that the answer will not arrive until the Eighth Circuit rules on the merits.

The procedural posture is worth noting for a different reason. The district court denied preliminary relief without reaching the First Amendment at all, resting instead on xAI's nearly three-month delay and the resulting weakness of its irreparable-harm showing. Appellate courts reviewing such a denial are reviewing that reasoning, not the constitutional question in the first instance. An unexplained grant of interim relief is consistent with several different views of the case, which is precisely why reading a merits signal into it is a mistake.

Finally, this is one of several active challenges to state synthetic-media laws moving through the federal courts at once. A Montana court took a narrower route in an election deepfake case, enjoining the law only as to the two plaintiffs before it, which is a reminder that the scope of relief in these cases varies as much as the outcomes. Our state-by-state survey of deepfake and AI imagery laws tracks the statutes themselves as those challenges play out.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. An interlocutory order in a pending appeal can be modified, superseded or mooted at any time, and the scope of relief in a particular case depends on the motion papers and the record. If you are affected by Minnesota's nudification statute or by synthetic imagery of yourself, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

Related articles

• Court Denies xAI Injunction Against Minnesota Nudification Law
• xAI Sues Minnesota Attorney General Over First-in-Nation AI Nudification Law
• Minnesota Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning and Penalties
• Federal Judge Enjoins Montana Election Deepfake Law, But Only for Two Plaintiffs
• Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State

Last updated: 2026-10-04. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-10-04.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Eighth Circuit strike down Minnesota's nudification law?

No. On October 2, 2026 the court granted xAI an injunction pending appeal in a one-sentence order that gave no reasons. That suspends enforcement against the appellant while the appeal proceeds. The appeal is still pending, briefing is under way, and no court has ruled on whether the statute is constitutional.

What exactly did the order say?

The entire operative text is: Appellant's motion for injunction pending appeal is granted. The order is dated October 02, 2026, was entered at the direction of the court, and is signed by Clerk Susan E. Bindler. It contains no opinion, no analysis and no named panel.

What is an injunction pending appeal?

It is temporary relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8. A party normally must ask the district court first, and if that court refuses, the party may ask the court of appeals. The relief governs the period while the appeal is pending and is not a ruling on the merits.

Is Minnesota's nudification law still in effect?

The statute, Minn. Stat. section 325E.91, remains on the books and took effect August 1, 2026. The October 2 order granted the appellant's motion, so the relief runs in favor of xAI in this case. The order does not describe its own scope beyond that, and it did not repeal or invalidate anything.

What does the Minnesota statute prohibit?

Under subdivision 2, a person who owns or controls a website, application, software, program or other service must not allow a user to access, download or use it to nudify an image or video, must not nudify an image or video on behalf of a user, and must not advertise or promote such a service. Subdivision 3 exempts services that require the technical skill of a user.

What are the penalties under the law?

The Attorney General may enforce the section under Minn. Stat. section 8.31, with a civil penalty of up to $500,000 for each unlawful access, download or use. A depicted individual may also sue for compensatory damages up to three times actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

Who is supporting xAI in the appeal?

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the First Amendment Lawyers Association and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation were granted leave on September 29, 2026 and filed an amicus brief supporting the emergency motion. The Liberty Justice Center was granted amicus status on October 2, 2026 and may file within seven days of the appellant's opening brief.

When will there be a real ruling on the First Amendment question?

Not before the appeal is briefed. The appellant's opening brief is due October 29, 2026 and the Attorney General's brief is due 30 days after the appellant's brief is filed. A merits decision from an Eighth Circuit panel after that briefing, and any argument the court holds, would be the first reasoned appellate ruling in the case.