Judge says Montana's AI deepfake election law is likely unconstitutional
A federal judge sided with a political group that used AI-altered images in campaign mailers, but the ruling only protects that one group — the law still stands for everyone else in Montana.
What happened: U.S. District Judge Susan Watters ruled that Montana's new law regulating AI deepfakes in elections likely violates the First Amendment. The case began after a political action committee tied to former legislator Dan Bartel sent mailers using AI to alter photos of candidates, adding Pride flags and buttons. Targeted lawmakers filed complaints, and the PAC sued, arguing the law censored political speech. Watters agreed the law was probably unconstitutional — but she limited her ruling to just Bartel and his PAC, leaving the law in force for every other Montanan.
Why it matters: This is one of the first real court tests of the wave of state laws written to police AI-generated deception in campaigns. Watters found the law didn't ban deepfakes evenly — it punished AI-edited images used to attack a candidate more harshly than ones used to help a candidate, which she called illegal viewpoint discrimination. That reasoning could weaken similar laws in other states if courts elsewhere agree, even as it leaves voters with less protection against AI-manipulated campaign material.
How it works, plainly: Watters didn't strike down Montana's law outright. Instead, citing the Supreme Court's Trump v. CASA decision, she said courts generally can't issue broad injunctions that block a law for everyone — only for the specific people who sued. So the law remains enforceable against anyone except Bartel and his committee, creating an odd situation where the same statute is unconstitutional for one PAC but still on the books for the rest of the state.
The rollout: The ruling is preliminary, not final, and the underlying lawsuit continues. Montana officials defended the bipartisan-passed law and could appeal. Because the decision only binds this one case, other candidates, PACs, or the state itself could still be prosecuted or sued under the same law until a higher court or a broader ruling settles the question nationally.