Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction challenging Minnesota's statute regulating election-related deepfakes. The court held that Christopher Kohls lacked standing because his labeled parody videos were outside the statute's scope, while Mary Franson had standing based on her dissemination of an unlabeled video. The court concluded that Franson's more than sixteen-month delay in seeking preliminary relief justified denying the injunction, without deciding the statute's ultimate constitutionality.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Kohls established Article III standing based on his labeled parody videos or on alleged third-party deterrence from sharing his content.
- Whether Franson established Article III standing based on her resharing of an unlabeled AI-generated video.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Franson's preliminary-injunction motion because of her sixteen-month delay in seeking relief.
- Whether the Eighth Circuit should decide the constitutional merits of Minnesota's deep-fake statute when those merits were not necessary to resolve the appeal.
Holdings
- Kohls lacked standing because his labeled parody videos did not fall within the statute's definition of a deep fake, and the record did not establish that he posted unlabeled videos or suffered an injury from third parties being deterred from sharing his content.
- Franson had standing because her dissemination of an unlabeled video was arguably proscribed by section 609.771 and presented a credible threat of enforcement.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Franson's motion for a preliminary injunction because her unexplained sixteen-month delay undermined the asserted irreparable harm and made extraordinary preliminary relief inappropriate.
- The court declined to decide the constitutional merits because it could resolve the appeal on standing and preliminary-injunction grounds without issuing advisory guidance.
Key quotations
“Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks review of a statute before it is enforced, he must demonstrate that there is “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.”” (at 3)
“A plaintiff cannot establish standing based merely on an unsupported assumption that some users of YouTube or X might decline to share a video because of the Minnesota statute.” (at 5)
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” (at 6)
“A plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in seeking a preliminary injunction “vitiates much of the force of their allegations of irreparable harm.”” (at 6)
“This court, however, does not sit to dispense guidance on matters that are unnecessary to a decision.” (at 8)
Factual background
Minnesota enacted a statute regulating dissemination of realistic artificial-intelligence-generated depictions intended to injure a candidate or influence an election. Kohls created and posted an AI-generated parody depicting Vice President Harris, labeling it as a parody and including a disclaimer; Franson reshared the video without an accompanying label or disclaimer. They sued in September 2024, and Franson sought a preliminary injunction on October 11, 2024, more than sixteen months after the statute's initial enactment.
Procedural history
Kohls and Franson sued Minnesota officials in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that Minnesota Statutes section 609.771 violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court concluded that Kohls lacked Article III standing, found that Franson had standing, and denied Franson's motion for a preliminary injunction because she waited more than sixteen months to seek relief. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.