The Justice Department is supporting xAI in its challenge against Minnesota's nudify prohibition.

      The US Department of Justice has intervened in a legal dispute supporting Elon Musk's xAI. It is assisting the company's challenge against a Minnesota law that prohibits AI "nudification" tools. A federal judge heard arguments on Wednesday and indicated a ruling would be forthcoming, according to Courthouse News Service.

      xAI is seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the law while its lawsuit progresses. The company filed a lawsuit against Minnesota in July, claiming that the law infringes on the First Amendment. The case is X.AI LLC v. Keith Ellison, who is the state attorney general, before Judge Donovan Frank in the District of Minnesota.

      On August 18, the Justice Department submitted a statement of interest. It did not express a position on the injunction but contended that the Minnesota law extends beyond federal legislation. The department also cautioned that stringent state regulations could hinder the AI industry.

      Details about the law

      The statute, referred to as HF 1606, came into effect this month. It prohibits any website, app, or software owner from permitting users to "nudify" or sexually modify images using AI, according to the text of the bill. Violating this rule can result in penalties of up to $500,000.

      The law implements strict liability, meaning a platform can be held accountable regardless of whether it knew about or intended the outcome, as stated by xAI in its complaint. Liability is determined solely by whether a user successfully created a covered image.

      xAI asserts that it already prohibits this conduct. Its policies prohibit users from generating nude or sexualized images of real individuals without consent. The company claims it has even taken legal action against users who bypass its restrictions. It argues that the state is treating it similarly to a platform that intentionally allows such images.

      Courtroom discussions

      Robert Dunn, representing xAI, argued in court that the law is overly broad. He stated that the legislature failed to consider the implications for free speech before enacting it. Dunn pointed out that the statute lacks exceptions for consent, artistic expression, or parody, meaning it could penalize legitimate, lawful edits.

      “The state would penalize xAI for allowing a user to nudify themselves,” Dunn remarked, according to Courthouse News. He suggested that Minnesota could amend the law to focus on consent and distribution, potentially including a “safe harbor” for well-meaning platforms.

      Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Janine Kimble countered this argument, asserting that terms of service alone are insufficient. She highlighted that xAI still reports tens of thousands of users creating such images. Kimble contended that the company’s chatbot, Grok, and similar tools do not provide any meaningful barriers to entry.

      “The repercussions only occur after the fact,” Kimble explained. She indicated that someone must view, report, and locate an image, and the user must also be within the jurisdiction of a court. The state mentioned that approximately 95% of deepfake images are non-consensual, sexually explicit portrayals of others.

      DOJ's involvement

      The federal government’s filing is a statement of interest, which allows the Justice Department to express its views without formally joining the case. The document was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward. It states that the federal government supports Minnesota's goal of combating sexual abuse imagery but has objections regarding the law's drafting.

      The department noted federal laws addressing the same issues, including the PROTECT Act and the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which President Trump signed into law in 2025. The TAKE IT DOWN Act establishes a notice-and-removal system, mandating platforms to remove flagged images within 48 hours, and is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.

      The DOJ argued that federal law is narrower than the Minnesota statute. It stipulates that an action must be done knowingly, excludes matters of public concern, and applies in cases where an adult has not provided consent. According to the filing, HF 1606 lacks these restrictions and can apply even when an adult creates an image of themselves.

      The department provided a specific instance, stating that federal law would not govern an AI-generated image of a shirtless man in a swimming pool, while Minnesota's law could apply due to its broad definition of “intimate part,” which includes the inner thigh or breast.

      State versus federal conflict

      The filing links this case to the Trump administration’s broader initiative for a lighter regulatory approach to AI. It referred to executive orders advocating for a uniform national standard instead of “50 discordant state ones.” The administration has also sought to preempt state AI regulations in favor of federal legislation.

      “States must be cautious about implementing excessive measures that could threaten national and economic security,” the government stated, referencing an executive order on AI. It asserted that federal law already addresses the same behaviors.

      Other governments are grappling with similar concerns. The European Union is considering a ban on nudification apps, and reports indicate that the underlying tools often exist on services like Hugging Face. Minnesota asserts that its