The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court's denial of a preliminary injunction against Minnesota's deepfake regulation law, finding that the plaintiffs waited too long to seek emergency relief against the statute.
Chief Judge Steven Colloton wrote the opinion in *Christopher Kohls v. Keith Ellison*, filed Feb. 9, 2026. The case involved a challenge to Minnesota's law regulating the use of artificial intelligence-generated content, known as deepfakes, in election contexts.
The plaintiffs, Christopher Kohls and Mary Franson, sued Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Douglas County Attorney Chad Larson in their official capacities, seeking to block enforcement of the deepfake statute. The law defines a deepfake as material "that is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual who did not in fact engage in such speech or conduct," according to Minnesota Statute Section 609.771.
The Minnesota legislature enacted the deepfake regulation in May 2023. The statute makes it a crime for a person to disseminate a deepfake or enter into an agreement to disseminate such content when they know or reasonably should know the material is artificially generated. The law specifically targets dissemination that occurs within 90 days before an election and is made without proper disclosure.
At the district court level, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota determined that only Franson had legal standing to challenge the statute. The court then denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that Franson had unreasonably delayed in seeking the extraordinary relief.
A preliminary injunction is a court order that temporarily stops certain actions while a case is pending. Courts typically require plaintiffs to show they will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that they have a likelihood of success on the merits of their case. The timing of when plaintiffs seek such relief can be crucial to whether courts grant the request.
The Eighth Circuit panel, which also included Circuit Judges Roger Loken and Richard Benton, reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. This is a deferential standard that gives lower courts significant leeway in their rulings on preliminary injunctions.
Chief Judge Colloton concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. The appeals court found that the delay in seeking relief undermined the plaintiffs' request for emergency intervention.
The case represents one of the first federal appeals court decisions to address state laws regulating deepfake technology in election contexts. As artificial intelligence technology has advanced, lawmakers across the country have grappled with how to address the potential for AI-generated content to mislead voters or interfere with democratic processes.
Minnesota's law appears designed to prevent the spread of convincing but false audio or video content that could influence election outcomes. The statute's 90-day pre-election window suggests lawmakers were particularly concerned about deepfakes circulating close to when voters cast ballots.
The First Amendment implications of such laws present complex questions about the balance between protecting election integrity and preserving free speech rights. Courts must weigh whether restrictions on deepfake content constitute permissible time, place and manner regulations or impermissible content-based speech restrictions.
While the Eighth Circuit's decision focused on procedural issues rather than the merits of the First Amendment challenge, the case highlights ongoing tensions between technological capabilities and existing legal frameworks. As deepfake technology becomes more sophisticated and accessible, courts will likely face additional challenges to similar state laws.
The plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief may have been influenced by the timing of elections or other strategic considerations. However, courts generally expect parties seeking preliminary injunctions to act promptly once they become aware of allegedly unconstitutional government action.
The case was submitted to the Eighth Circuit on Oct. 22, 2025, indicating the court took several months to consider the appeal. The panel's decision to affirm suggests that the lower court's reasoning about the delay was sound and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the urgency typically required for preliminary relief.
This ruling may influence how other challengers approach similar deepfake laws in other jurisdictions. The decision underscores the importance of timing in constitutional challenges and the courts' reluctance to grant emergency relief when plaintiffs have not acted expeditiously.
The underlying case will continue in the district court, where the merits of the constitutional challenge to Minnesota's deepfake law will ultimately be decided. The Eighth Circuit's decision only addressed whether the plaintiffs deserved immediate relief pending that final resolution.