On January 6th 2026, an over two hour long interview with Rose McGowan was published on the We Need To Talk show on YouTube. Among the many things she spoke about in her interview was her relationship with Marilyn Manson, though only briefly. And in a clip posted on the Instagram page for We Need To Talk, where a clip of her talking about Manson is shown, Rose decided to answer a few questions in the comments section, as you can see below: Rose therefore confirmed that she and Marilyn Manson are still friends. And when the allegations against him were made public in February 2021 and she gave a statement supporting his accusers, she was "confused" and "getting heat to comment and condemn." She said what she said at that time because she was going through a lot at the time and didn't want to deal with "another crisis," therefore she gave into pressure. She goes on to say how she and Manson later "reconnected," and asked to read the court f...
Last we heard with the Ashley Walters case against Marilyn Manson was that on December 16th 2025 a Motion for Summary Judgment was made on behalf of Manson, which led to Judge Steve Cochran dismissing the case in Manson's favor due to the fact that he saw no path for Walters winning her case and thus put it under the statute of limitations. According to her lawyers, we were told that Walters would seek an appeal for a third time.
Despite the dismissal of the case, the case took a turn when Assembly Bill 250 went into effect on January 1, 2026. Assembly Bill 250, also known as the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act, was signed into law by Governor Newsom in October 2025. It extends statutes of limitations and increases accountability for covering up sexual assault.
Despite the dismissal of the case, the case took a turn when Assembly Bill 250 went into effect on January 1, 2026. Assembly Bill 250, also known as the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act, was signed into law by Governor Newsom in October 2025. It extends statutes of limitations and increases accountability for covering up sexual assault.
Below are the Key Provisions of this new law:
Two-Year Revival Window: Survivors who were 18 or older at the time of their assault can file civil lawsuits between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027, even if their claims expired decades ago.
Liability for Private Entities: The law allows survivors to sue both the individual perpetrator and private institutions (such as private employers, churches, hospitals, and businesses) that enabled, concealed, or failed to prevent the abuse.
Revival of Related Claims: Beyond the assault itself, survivors can revive related claims tied to the incident, including wrongful termination and sexual harassment.
"Cover-Up" Accountability: The bill specifically targets institutions that engaged in a "cover-up," defined as a concerted effort to hide evidence or silence survivors using methods like nondisclosure agreements.
The law has one important limitation that should be kept in mind:
Settled Cases: The law does not revive claims that were already litigated to a final judgment or resolved through a written settlement agreement before January 1, 2026.
Use of AB 250 for Revival (January 2026)
Following the dismissal, Walters filed a motion on January 8, 2026, citing the newly effective AB 250 as grounds to reopen her case.
The Argument: Walters’ legal team contends that because a final judgment had not yet been formally entered by January 1, 2026, her case was technically "pending" and thus qualifies for the law's two-year revival window for otherwise time-barred claims.
Targeting Individual Perpetrators: Unlike previous lookback laws (like AB 2777), AB 250 allows survivors to sue individual perpetrators without the need to prove an institutional "cover-up". This is critical for Walters, as her primary target is Manson himself.
Current Legal Status
Plaintiff Stance: Ashley Walters believes that because the judgment for dismissal has not been finalized, she should be able to qualify to have her case revived under the new law AB 250. She argues that if this new law was around when the judgment to dismiss was given, it would not have been granted. This is because the new law doesn't take into account the statute of limitations which caused her dismissal, and the definition of "cover up" takes into account nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements. She continues to argue that she suffered from repressed memories due to Manson's abuse, and that he threatened her and traumatized her and used an NDA to keep her silent. And because her attempt at an appeal would be argued on the basis of the new law, she is now asking the court to reopen the case with a Motion for Reconsideration, so as not to expend additional unnecessary resources.
Defense Stance: Marilyn Manson believes the arguments of the plaintiff to reopen the case based on the new law are "meritless," arguing that the new statute is "inapplicable" to a case that has already been dismissed twice by the court. He says it is "transparently designed to evade statutory deadlines and the consequences" of the court ordered Motion for Summary Judgment. This judgment for dismissal was granted nearly a month ago, and "California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) strictly requires that a motion for reconsideration be filed within ten (10) days after entry of the order." She also never brought up the new law before the judgment to have the case dismissed took place, even though the new bill was signed into law by the governor two months prior to the dismissal. Plaintiff is thus creating an emergency through delay, which is designed to put the defendant at a disadvantage.
Hearing Granted: Judge Cochran has granted a request to set a hearing specifically on whether AB 250 applies to this case. This will take place on January 26th 2026.
If the judge accepts the AB 250 argument, Walters' case — which has been dismissed and revived multiple times since 2021 — would proceed to trial. If rejected, Walters' lawyers have indicated they will appeal the decision once more.
Plaintiff Attorney Statement to Rolling Stone: “This law did not become effective until January 1, 2026 and could not have been raised prior to its effective date. This is a ridiculous argument, and just another tactic by Mr. Warner to skirt accountability. Ms. Walters has waited far too long to hold her abuser accountable, and outdated statute of limitations arguments will no longer protect him. We are grateful that the judge granted our request today to set a hearing on this issue. We are optimistic that her case will go forward and she will get the justice she rightfully deserves.”
Defense Attorney Statement to Rolling Stone: “Ashley Walters’ meritless claim has now been dismissed twice. We are confident that her motion to reconsider the most recent dismissal based on a new and inapplicable statute will fail. The allegations of [Warner] trying to kiss her and trying to force her hands down his pants, which we absolutely deny, would not rise to the level of type of sexual assault that is covered by AB 250. If this returns, there will be another summary judgment motion. And we believe we will be successful in dismissing her complaint for a third time."
Two-Year Revival Window: Survivors who were 18 or older at the time of their assault can file civil lawsuits between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027, even if their claims expired decades ago.
Liability for Private Entities: The law allows survivors to sue both the individual perpetrator and private institutions (such as private employers, churches, hospitals, and businesses) that enabled, concealed, or failed to prevent the abuse.
Revival of Related Claims: Beyond the assault itself, survivors can revive related claims tied to the incident, including wrongful termination and sexual harassment.
"Cover-Up" Accountability: The bill specifically targets institutions that engaged in a "cover-up," defined as a concerted effort to hide evidence or silence survivors using methods like nondisclosure agreements.
The law has one important limitation that should be kept in mind:
Settled Cases: The law does not revive claims that were already litigated to a final judgment or resolved through a written settlement agreement before January 1, 2026.
Use of AB 250 for Revival (January 2026)
Following the dismissal, Walters filed a motion on January 8, 2026, citing the newly effective AB 250 as grounds to reopen her case.
The Argument: Walters’ legal team contends that because a final judgment had not yet been formally entered by January 1, 2026, her case was technically "pending" and thus qualifies for the law's two-year revival window for otherwise time-barred claims.
Targeting Individual Perpetrators: Unlike previous lookback laws (like AB 2777), AB 250 allows survivors to sue individual perpetrators without the need to prove an institutional "cover-up". This is critical for Walters, as her primary target is Manson himself.
Current Legal Status
Plaintiff Stance: Ashley Walters believes that because the judgment for dismissal has not been finalized, she should be able to qualify to have her case revived under the new law AB 250. She argues that if this new law was around when the judgment to dismiss was given, it would not have been granted. This is because the new law doesn't take into account the statute of limitations which caused her dismissal, and the definition of "cover up" takes into account nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements. She continues to argue that she suffered from repressed memories due to Manson's abuse, and that he threatened her and traumatized her and used an NDA to keep her silent. And because her attempt at an appeal would be argued on the basis of the new law, she is now asking the court to reopen the case with a Motion for Reconsideration, so as not to expend additional unnecessary resources.
Defense Stance: Marilyn Manson believes the arguments of the plaintiff to reopen the case based on the new law are "meritless," arguing that the new statute is "inapplicable" to a case that has already been dismissed twice by the court. He says it is "transparently designed to evade statutory deadlines and the consequences" of the court ordered Motion for Summary Judgment. This judgment for dismissal was granted nearly a month ago, and "California Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) strictly requires that a motion for reconsideration be filed within ten (10) days after entry of the order." She also never brought up the new law before the judgment to have the case dismissed took place, even though the new bill was signed into law by the governor two months prior to the dismissal. Plaintiff is thus creating an emergency through delay, which is designed to put the defendant at a disadvantage.
Hearing Granted: Judge Cochran has granted a request to set a hearing specifically on whether AB 250 applies to this case. This will take place on January 26th 2026.
If the judge accepts the AB 250 argument, Walters' case — which has been dismissed and revived multiple times since 2021 — would proceed to trial. If rejected, Walters' lawyers have indicated they will appeal the decision once more.
Plaintiff Attorney Statement to Rolling Stone: “This law did not become effective until January 1, 2026 and could not have been raised prior to its effective date. This is a ridiculous argument, and just another tactic by Mr. Warner to skirt accountability. Ms. Walters has waited far too long to hold her abuser accountable, and outdated statute of limitations arguments will no longer protect him. We are grateful that the judge granted our request today to set a hearing on this issue. We are optimistic that her case will go forward and she will get the justice she rightfully deserves.”
Defense Attorney Statement to Rolling Stone: “Ashley Walters’ meritless claim has now been dismissed twice. We are confident that her motion to reconsider the most recent dismissal based on a new and inapplicable statute will fail. The allegations of [Warner] trying to kiss her and trying to force her hands down his pants, which we absolutely deny, would not rise to the level of type of sexual assault that is covered by AB 250. If this returns, there will be another summary judgment motion. And we believe we will be successful in dismissing her complaint for a third time."