A federal judge has rejected a constitutional challenge brought by WWE, TKO, Vince McMahon, and Linda McMahon in the ongoing lawsuit involving allegations of sexual abuse against former WWF ring boys.
On Monday, October 19, U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar ruled that Maryland’s Child Victims Act of 2023 is constitutional as applied to the case, denying the defendants’ attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed on federal constitutional grounds.
The decision clears the way for the legal proceedings to advance toward the discovery phase, during which the parties may obtain evidence relevant to the claims and defenses.
The Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023 eliminated the statute of limitations for certain civil negligence claims involving childhood sexual abuse, allowing survivors to pursue legal action regardless of how much time has passed since the alleged incidents.
The legislation had already been upheld by the Maryland Supreme Court earlier this year.
WWE, TKO, and the McMahons challenged the law on both state and federal constitutional grounds as part of their efforts to prevent the lawsuit from proceeding.
The case was brought by former WWF ring boys who allege they were sexually abused by former ring announcer Mel Phillips while working for the wrestling company as minors between the 1970s and early 1990s.
Phillips died in 2012.
The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of negligence in connection with the alleged abuse. Those allegations remain subject to the ongoing legal proceedings and have not been established as findings of fact in this case.
Monday’s ruling addresses the defendants’ constitutional challenge to the Maryland law rather than the underlying allegations.
As a result, the decision does not establish liability on the part of WWE, TKO, Vince McMahon, or Linda McMahon.
A teleconference has been scheduled for November 17, when the court is expected to establish future deadlines as the litigation moves forward.
The latest ruling represents a significant procedural development in the case, allowing the plaintiffs’ claims to continue through the legal process despite the defendants’ constitutional objections.
