JEHOVAH’S
WITNESSES
More than 12 years revealing secrets because there is no excuse for secrecy in God’s true religion – The Watchtower, June 1st 1997; Dan 2:47; Matt 10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 12:2; Acts 4:19, 20.
JEHOVAH’S
WITNESSES
More than 12 years revealing secrets because there is no excuse for secrecy in God’s true religion – The Watchtower, June 1st 1997; Dan 2:47; Matt 10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 12:2; Acts 4:19, 20.
Watchtower Headquarters in WarWick, New York
Article written by: Miss Usato on November 26th, 2025, Updated on: October 18th, 2026
The $100 million abuse lawsuit against Watchtower and the Governing Body did not disappear. The legal battle continued into June 2026, and a court-ordered pause is not the same thing as a dismissal.
You can find the Court Documents discussed in this article here: Court Documents on Lawsuit of Souza
Content warning: This report discusses allegations of childhood sexual abuse.
The sound of silence
A lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York has put Jehovah’s Witnesses’ corporate structure under forensic scrutiny. The complaint describes a picture that doesn’t match the serene pastoral image featured in Watchtower’s glossy literature.
The plaintiff, Stella Cristina Gomes de Souza, alleges that beginning in 2011, when she was 12 years old in Brazil, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by Angelo Roviezzo, a Jehovah’s Witness Circuit Overseer. She alleges that what followed was not protection, but institutional silence.
Her complaint names Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, and the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She argues that abuse reports were handled through a centralized religious hierarchy and that organizational decisions contributed to concealment rather than child protection. She also alleges that Roviezzo was transferred rather than appropriately reported to authorities.
These are serious allegations, not findings of fact by the federal court. A policy calling for communication with a branch office does not, by itself, prove that reporting to police was forbidden. The issue is what instructions were given, what decisions followed, and whether they caused legally actionable harm.
No less than $100,000,000
A lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York has put Jehovah’s Witnesses’ corporate structure under forensic scrutiny. The complaint describes a picture that doesn’t match the serene pastoral image featured in Watchtower’s glossy literature.
The plaintiff, Stella Cristina Gomes de Souza, alleges that beginning in 2011, when she was 12 years old in Brazil, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by Angelo Roviezzo, a Jehovah’s Witness Circuit Overseer. She alleges that what followed was not protection, but institutional silence. Her complaint names Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, and the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
She argues that abuse reports were handled through a centralized religious hierarchy and that organizational decisions contributed to concealment rather than child protection. She also alleges that Roviezzo was transferred rather than appropriately reported to authorities.
These are serious allegations, not findings of fact by the federal court. A policy calling for communication with a branch office does not, by itself, prove that reporting to police was forbidden. The issue is what instructions were given, what decisions followed, and whether they caused legally actionable harm.
You can also find additional coverage on this particular topic on YouTube with
December 2025: The Defense Challenges the Case
After the complaint was filed on November 12, 2025, defendants began pressing for dismissal on legal grounds, including timeliness and forum selection. They argued that older allegations arising in Brazil could not properly proceed in federal court in New York.
Souza’s attorneys responded that the alleged organizational decisions were connected to leadership based in New York and argued that circumstances including childhood trauma and religious coercion supported equitable tolling, a doctrine that can sometimes extend a filing deadline. Those are the parties’ positions, not court findings.
On December 19, Judge Nelson Stephen Román established a schedule for briefing the anticipated dismissal motions. The court’s scheduling order did not decide whether the plaintiff’s allegations were true.
February–April 2026: A Fight Over the Complaint
The legal maneuvering continued well beyond AvoidJW’s December report. In February, Souza attempted to amend her complaint. Judge Román denied her attempt to amend as a matter of right on February 17, and on February 27 struck a subsequent motion to amend because it had not followed the court’s filing rules. The judge revised the briefing schedule for the dismissal motions and proposed amendment.
On April 20, the Governing Body asked the federal court to stay, or pause, the proceedings while New York’s highest court considered a legal question involving the relationship between the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Act and the state’s Child Victims Act. Souza opposed the request on April 21.
May 4: Stayed, Not Dismissed
On May 4, 2026, Judge Román granted the Governing Body’s request. The order states: “The Court grants the request and STAYS this action as other courts in this district have similarly done.”
A stay is not a dismissal. It pauses proceedings; it does not determine whether abuse occurred, absolve the defendants, or award the plaintiff damages. Nor does it guarantee that the case will eventually proceed to trial.
On May 18, Souza’s attorneys filed a motion to reconsider that order. Their notice identifies the separate appellate question in Parker v. Alexander and asks Judge Román to revisit the pause. A request for reconsideration does not itself overturn a stay.
What Happened in June – and Why Some Filings Are Hard to Find
The publicly accessible Justia docket we could inspect stops at May 4, although independently available documents confirm the May 18 reconsideration motion.
A June 11 discussion by people following the case identified docket entries 53, 54, and 55, with the last reported entry dated June 1, 2026. The commenters said those documents had not been unlocked on CourtListener. Independent July 2026 reporting also describes the docket as running through June 1. However, we could not verify the full text of entries 53–55 from accessible primary documents. Their contents and effect must not be assumed.
That is an access gap, not evidence that the case was dismissed or that proceedings have otherwise concluded. PACER may carry more recent or purchasable documents; CourtListener’s free availability depends in part on whether filings have been uploaded or made accessible. A fresh PACER docket check is needed to establish the definitive status as of October 2026.
The Question Behind the Court Filings
The complaint raises a question wider than a single alleged offender: when a multinational religious organization directs how abuse allegations are handled, who bears responsibility if those decisions allegedly prevent protection or accountability?
If the claims survive procedural challenges, discovery could test what records exist, who received reports, and what was done with them. But discovery is not automatic, and the complaint itself is not proof of institutional wrongdoing.
For now, the public record establishes a lawsuit, contested legal arguments, a May 4 stay, and an effort to overturn that stay. The newer June docket entries warrant closer scrutiny before drawing further conclusions.
A case can be paused without being over. And silence in public reporting should never be mistaken for silence on the docket.
Sources and court records
Original AvoidJW article (Nov. 26, 2025): https://avoidjw.org/child-sexual-abuse/millions-claim-lawsuit-newyork-watchtower-csa/
AvoidJW case timeline (Dec. 2025): https://avoidjw.org/news/souza-watchtower-lawsuit/
Justia public docket, through May 4, 2026: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/7:2025cv09458/652986
May 4 stay order, filing 50: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2025cv09458/652986/50
May 18 notice for reconsideration, filing 51: https://www.jwchildabuse.org/document/51-0-notice-of-plaintiffs-motion-for-reconsideration/
May 18 memorandum, filing 52: https://www.jwchildabuse.org/document/52-0-memorandum-of-law-in-support-of-plaintiffs-motion-for-reconsideration/
CourtListener docket (check for entries 53–55 and more recent records): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71905206/gomes-de-souza-v-watchtower-bible-and-tract-society-of-pennsylvania-inc/
June 11 discussion reporting inaccessible entries 53–55 (secondary, not primary evidence): https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/1twv2cs/federal_judge_pauses_abuse_lawsuit_against/