Court Leaves Minnesota AI Image Ban In Force Against xAI
TechCrunch reported that a federal judge denied xAI an immediate order blocking Minnesota's nudification-app ban, shifting the dispute to an August preliminary-injunction schedule while the law takes effect.
A federal court refused to stop Minnesota's new ban on so-called nudification apps before it took effect, TechCrunch reported, leaving xAI to fight the law on a preliminary-injunction schedule rather than through an immediate temporary restraining order.
The July 31 court order addressed timing before any merits ruling in the speech and platform-liability challenge.
According to Judge Donovan Frank's order, xAI filed its motion on July 29, nearly three months after the law was signed and three days before the law's August 1 effective date.
Court Keeps The Law In Force
The order denied xAI's emergency request to bar Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison from enforcing the state's Nudification Ban against the company before the law took effect.
Frank wrote that the delay in bringing the action and motion suggested that harm was not immediate.
The denial does not end xAI's lawsuit.
The court will hear the emergency motion as a request for a preliminary injunction, with Minnesota's response due by August 12, xAI's reply due by August 17 and a hearing scheduled for August 19 at 9:30 a.m. in St. Paul.
xAI Argues The Ban Reaches Too Far
xAI's suit describes the Minnesota law as overinclusive and likely to chill Grok users' lawful speech.
The same account identified the law as the first of its kind in the United States, giving the dispute an early test-case role for state rules aimed at AI image tools.
Earlier use of xAI's Grok chatbot on X to create non-consensual sexualized images formed part of the public backdrop in that account.
X and xAI are now part of SpaceX, and the lawsuit leaves the company facing active state enforcement while the constitutional challenge proceeds.
Hearing Schedule Becomes The Control Point
The immediate operational consequence is procedural: the law can operate while the court collects a fuller record.
For platforms and AI toolmakers, the August schedule now matters more than the denied temporary order because it will frame whether Minnesota can keep enforcing the ban during the rest of the case.
Frank's order did not decide the merits of xAI's First Amendment arguments.
Written briefs and the preliminary-injunction hearing will now define the next enforcement record, including xAI's overbreadth claims and Minnesota's stated enforcement position.
