8th Circuit Grants xAI Injunction on Minnesota Law

The Eighth Circuit granted SpaceXAI’s motion for an injunction pending appeal against Minnesota’s AI nudification law on 2 October 2026, according to the court’s docket. The docket entry is one line, and this publication has not seen the order or its reasoning. The case details below come from the two sides’ briefs, each written by an advocate, and none of it is independently verified.

What the Docket Shows

The Eighth Circuit’s docket in No. 26-2806, SpaceXAI LLC v. Keith Ellison, carries a judge order entered on 2 October 2026 at 3:45 PM. It reads: “Appellant’s motion for injunction pending appeal is granted.”

That is the whole entry. The docket gives no reasoning and no scope. The motion itself asked for an injunction barring enforcement of Minnesota Statute § 325E.91 against SpaceXAI, and this publication has not seen the order, so it cannot say what the order covers.

SpaceXAI LLC was named X.AI LLC when it sued. Its motion says it changed its name on 6 August 2026 and remains the same legal entity.

What the Law Does, as the Parties Describe It

The Minnesota law, in the State’s words, prohibits companies that own or control AI-powered products from allowing users to generate sexual images and images of other intimate parts. It defines nudify as altering an image or video “to depict an intimate part not depicted in an original unaltered image or video of an identifiable individual,” where the alteration is realistic enough that a reasonable person would believe the part belongs to that person.

SpaceXAI says the law borrows its definition of intimate part from a criminal sexual-contact statute, which it says takes in the inner thigh, buttocks and breast, male or female, as well as the primary genital area and groin. It says the law has no consent element, no dissemination requirement, no scienter requirement and no exception for artistic, political or journalistic images.

SpaceXAI says a provider that allows such an image can be fined up to $500,000 and faces a civil action for treble and punitive damages, and its motion describes the exposure as “$500,000 per image.” This publication has not read the statute text and takes those figures from SpaceXAI’s motion.

The State says the law targets what it calls a tsunami of digital sexual victimization. It says the legislature heard testimony from women whose images were altered, and that the bill passed the House and Senate with all but one House member’s approval before the Governor signed it on 7 May 2026. Minnesota law made it effective on 1 August 2026.

Eighty-One Days, Then Five, Then Sixty-Two

SpaceXAI sued on 27 July 2026 and asked for a restraining order and preliminary injunction on 29 July, days before the law took effect. The district court denied the restraining order on 31 July and denied the preliminary injunction on 4 September.

SpaceXAI asked the district court for an injunction pending appeal on 8 September, and the court denied that on 9 September. SpaceXAI filed its emergency motion in the Eighth Circuit on 11 September. The State responded on 21 September and SpaceXAI replied on 28 September.

This publication’s own arithmetic from those dates: 81 days from signing to the lawsuit, 5 days from the lawsuit to the effective date, and 62 days from the effective date to the Eighth Circuit order.

Why the District Court Said No

The two sides describe the district court’s reasons in similar terms. Both say it rested on delay and on the balance of equities. SpaceXAI says the court never addressed the First Amendment merits. It says the court held the company had “unreasonably delayed,” although the company sought relief before the law took effect, two and a half months after enactment.

The State says the district court denied relief three times, and that it found SpaceXAI’s evidence of ongoing costs “vague and conclusory” and its claim of lost Minnesota customers “purely speculative.” The State also argues the company waited months to sue without reason.

On the merits, SpaceXAI’s motion says the law is content based, so strict scrutiny applies, and that it is overbroad. The State argues strict scrutiny does not apply and that the law would survive it anyway. Neither argument has been ruled on in anything this publication has seen.

What SpaceXAI Says It Changed

SpaceXAI says it restricted the image-editing features of Grok Imagine for Minnesota users on 1 August to avoid strict-liability exposure. Elsewhere its motion says it was compelled to restrict access to Grok Imagine in Minnesota since 1 August. The motion cites a sworn declaration attesting that SpaceXAI designed, tested and deployed geographically targeted controls inside Grok Imagine’s image-editing pipeline and diverted substantial engineering resources to do so.

SpaceXAI also says the United States filed a Statement of Interest in the district court, which in its words explained the national interest in promoting AI dominance and contrasted the Minnesota law with the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act. Those are SpaceXAI’s statements, and the State says the court found its cost evidence vague and conclusory.

The Structural Read

The docket entry and the briefs are different kinds of source. The entry, entered on 2 October at 3:45 PM, is the whole of what the court has said in anything this publication saw: it gives no reasoning and no scope. The motion asked for an injunction barring enforcement of the statute against SpaceXAI, and this publication cannot say what the order covers.

Both sides describe the district court’s reasons in similar terms, delay and the balance of equities. SpaceXAI says the court never addressed the First Amendment merits; the State says the court found SpaceXAI’s evidence of ongoing costs “vague and conclusory”. Neither side’s argument on the merits has been ruled on in anything this publication has seen.

The $500,000 per image figure is SpaceXAI’s description of its exposure, which this publication has not checked against the statute’s text. SpaceXAI also says it restricted the image-editing features of Grok Imagine for Minnesota users from 1 August, and separately cites a sworn declaration for its claim that it designed and deployed geographically targeted controls and diverted engineering resources; the State says the court found its cost evidence vague and conclusory.

Three Implications

A DOCKET ENTRY WITH NO REASONING. The docket entry grants the motion and gives no reasoning. This publication did not see the order itself, so nothing in this piece says whether the order rests on the merits.

TWO ACCOUNTS OF THE SAME HISTORY. The dates in the piece come from the parties’ briefs and the docket. What each side makes of the interval between enactment and suit is advocacy, and this publication does not choose between them.

WHAT REMAINS OPEN. The order’s reasoning and scope, whether SpaceXAI has changed its Minnesota restrictions since 2 October, whether the State will seek further review and the statute’s own text were not seen, and no court has ruled on the statute’s constitutionality in anything this publication read.

What Is Not Established

The order’s reasoning, its scope, and whether it rests on the merits are not on the docket. Whether SpaceXAI has changed its Minnesota restrictions since 2 October is not stated, and neither is whether the State will seek further review. No court has ruled on the constitutionality of the statute in anything this publication read.

Every characterisation of the law and the case above comes from the parties’ briefs, filed by advocates for each side, and this publication verified none of it independently. Nothing here is legal advice or investment advice.