The Justice Department (164news.com on justice department) Backs xAI Against Minnesota's Nudify Ban
The US Justice Department has filed in support of Elon Musk’s xAI, which is fighting to block a Minnesota law that bans AI "nudification" tools. A federal judge heard the case on Wednesday and will rule soon. At stake is who gets to regulate AI-made sexual imagery.
Background
August 20, 2026 - 10:47 am
Credit: Shutterstock
The US Department of Justice has entered a court battle on the side of Elon Musk’s xAI. The company is challenging a Minnesota law that bans AI "nudification" tools.
xAI sued Minnesota in July, arguing the statute violates the First Amendment. The case, X.AI LLC v. Keith Ellison, is before Judge Donovan Frank in the District of Minnesota.
The Justice Department filed a statement of interest on August 18, asserting that the Minnesota law extends further than federal law and could impede the AI industry.
The Law in Question
The statute, known as HF 1606, took effect this month. It prohibits anyone who owns or controls a website, app, or software from allowing users to sexually alter images using AI. Violations are punishable by fines up to $500,000.
Key Points:
- The law imposes strict liability, meaning platforms can be held responsible regardless of their knowledge or intent.
- xAI argues it already prohibits the creation and distribution of nude or sexualized images without consent.
The Courtroom Argument
xAI’s attorney, Robert Dunn, argued that the law is overly broad and lacks specific exemptions for consent, artistic expression, or parody. He claimed it could punish lawful editing.
Minnesota's representative, Janine Kimble, countered that xAI's terms of service are insufficient and that the company reports tens of thousands of users creating such images. She maintained that tools like xAI's chatbot Grok lack meaningful barriers to entry.
The Justice Department's Role
The Justice Department's statement of interest expresses agreement with Minnesota's objective to combat sexual abuse imagery but disagrees with the state’s approach. It highlights potential negative impacts on the AI industry and emphasizes the need for a more tailored legal framework.