Massachusetts City May Not Display Statues of Catholic Saints, State’s Highest Court Rules
The ACLU-backed plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the statues convey the government’s support for one religion over others, the Court ruled. The city counters that displaying the statues on its new public safety building pays tribute to first responders, without advancing religion.
An ACLU-backed coalition of plaintiffs is fighting to stop the city of Quincy, Massachusetts, from displaying statues of two Catholic patron saints on its newly built public safety building—and so far, they’re winning.
The case, Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy, pits two views of the statues against each other: The ACLU argues they are Catholic iconography that convey government support for religion, while the City counters they are widely revered symbols that pay tribute to public service.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has now sided with the plaintiffs, affirming a lower court’s preliminary injunction that blocks the statues from going up on the facade of the building. While the Court acknowledged the statues have both secular and religious significance, it held that, based on the record, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that they convey the city’s preference for one religion over others—in violation of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The ten-foot-tall Italian bronze statues were planned as finishing touches on the city headquarters, completed in March 2026. Saint Michael the Archangel, long a symbol of law enforcement, was to go on one side of the building’s facade; the Roman soldier Florian, said to have put out a great fire with a single vessel of water, was to go on the other:
[Artist’s rendition of the statues’ planned placement, from the complaint]
The City’s lawyers at the Becket Fund say that while some faith traditions consider them saints, Florian and Michael have become woven into secular culture, “popularized as symbols for those in public service for hundreds of years.”
“It just reinforces that the city, our local government, they support us for all that we do. And it’s really no more than that,” said Gary Smyth, Chief of Quincy’s Fire Department.
Quincy residents, however, did not share that same appreciation when the planned additions, projected to cost $850,000, first came to light in a February 2025 local news story, sparking a public outcry and an online petition opposing the statues that garnered over 1,600 signatures.
By the end of May last year, 15 residents represented by the ACLU sued the city. They allege that the display of the statues violates Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which guarantees equal protection for “all religious sects and denominations,” and also prohibits the “subordination of any one sect or denomination to another.”
The statues send “an alarming message that those who do not subscribe to the City’s preferred religious beliefs are second-class residents who should not feel safe, welcomed, or equally respected by their government,” the lawsuit claims.
The planned displays also sparked political division in the Quincy community, according to the lawsuit. The decision to commission and install the Catholic saint statues was allegedly made unilaterally by Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch and was not disclosed until after the news story was published, at a February 2025 City Council meeting attended by over 200 members of the public.
Last October, Norfolk Superior Court Judge William F. Sullivan agreed and granted a preliminary injunction blocking installation, finding the statues would “serve no discernable secular purpose.” It also denied the City’s motion to dismiss the case. The City appealed.
This May, the Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument, where the ACLU’s lawyer asserted the two statues signal the government’s preference for the Catholic religion over the beliefs of others, while the City’s lawyers at Becket argued that the statues’ symbolism transcends their religious roots.
In their brief, Becket went further: The objective observer, seeing the statues in context, would know their purpose was to “honor and inspire first responders, not to advance religion.”
Justice Scott Kafker, writing for a unanimous court, disagreed. He held that the proper framework for evaluating the statues is a “nuanced” one set out in Colo v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen. (1979)—grounded in Article 3’s own text, purposes, and history. That framework draws on the same factors as the “Lemon test”—a 1971 Establishment Clause standard the U.S. Supreme Court has since abandoned, but which Massachusetts courts still apply: whether the statues serve a secular purpose; whether their primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion; and whether displaying them would cause “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
Massachusetts courts also weigh a fourth factor outside the Lemon test, Justice Kafker continued: whether the statues carry “divisive political potential”—an important factor, given the plaintiffs’ evidence of the public petitions and community outcry over the statues.
Considering the statues’ “distinctly Catholic roots and references,” Justice Kafker concluded they may “convey to observing members of the public implicit government support for that religion and, as a result, subordination of other religions”—likely violating Article 3.
The Court’s ruling came down on August 20. Joe Davis, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the City of Quincy, told Legal Insurrection, “This ruling is disappointing but is only preliminary. Quincy chose these statues to honor the courage and sacrifice of its firefighters and police. The City should not have to hide public art simply because some people may think of religion when they see it. As the Court noted today, this is not the final word for these statues, and we will continue defending Quincy’s right to honor its heroes.”
And while they do, the two bronze statues of Michael and Florian remain in a neighboring Randolph storage facility—awaiting their final resting place.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If this is the case that the government doesn’t want to show they support on religion over another, than the new board of Muslims that state legislature has proposed is not lawful either?
Senate Bill S.2134 (companion H.3351) proposes creating a permanent 11-member commission dedicated to the status of people who practice Islam in Massachusetts. Sponsored by Senator James Eldridge and Representative Vanna Howard, the bill has cleared initial committees and was pending in the Senate Ways and Means Committee as of early 2026.
The commission would serve as a resource for state government on issues affecting American Muslims, including:
Conducting research and holding public hearings on cultural, social, and economic issues.
Examining trends in Islamophobia and evaluating anti-discrimination efforts.
Recommending qualified American Muslims for appointive positions in state and local government.
Reporting annually to the Governor and Legislature.
Members would be appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, Senate President, House Speaker, State Secretary, and chairs of the joint committee on racial equity. Initial appointments and the hiring of an executive director would target December 1, 2026, if enacted.
How about a new board to export muslims back home to where they can do whatever uncivilized thing they want, and not live in the dread fear of “islamophobia?”
That’s different. Catholics won’t hunt down and kill the ACLU lawyers.
So IF the Archangel Michael is someONE in Islam, what the heck is there reason to be upset? I bet there is some Islamic group working with the ACLU. Better check.
I cannot see any legal support for Muslims getting a board to “assist” in Muslim governmental appointments, period. If they want the job, get educated and compete like most people do.
Smacks of discrimination to secularists, Catholics and Christians of all denominations as well as Hindus, Buddhists, Natures sects and all others.
This cannot pass a freedom test.
Golly, this is a simple one to solve. Rename one statute “Che” and the other “Fidel”. Leave them untouched otherwise. The ACLU and the DSA won’t touch the issue then, and the rest of us can snicker and continue to call them “Michael” and “Florian”, as we’ll know.
To be a saint you have to perform three miracles, at least one of which is not a card trick.
Got to remove all the Christianity and Catholicism to make way for the 7th century religious ideology of the pedophile.
Maybe. But also remember that communist states love to abuse the masses with grey intimidating uninspiring soul draining structures (see Obama presidential library). So I would expect no less from present day Massachusetts.
Identify the statues as transgender, they’ll be approved by tomorrow.
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Ironically penned by Quincy’s most famous resident, John Adams.
If cognitive dissonance were a nuclear weapon, Massachusetts would be a sheet of glass today. It’s not just this issue, it’s the confluence of many disparate things coming to a head at once.
Remember, this is the same state who removed Lincoln’s statue from downtown Boston.
Maybe it’s me but if I were a judge I would say where’s the religion angle? I see a guy with wings dancing and a Roman soldier pouring water on his shoe.
Just replace them with Mohammed and Sappho, and get back to work!
Sappho could write:
A peer of the gods he seems to me, the man who sits over against you face to face, listening to the sweet tones of your voice and the loveliness of your laughing; it is this that sets my heart fluttering in my breast. For if I gaze on you but for a little while, I am no longer master of my voice, and my tongue lies useless, and a delicate flame runs over my skin. No more do I see with my eyes, and my ears are filled with uproar. The sweat pours down me, I am all seized with trembling, and I grow paler than the grass. My strength fails me, and I seem little short of dying.
7BC, via Longinus
So… the people suing believe the city will let their house burn down if they don’t first prove they are believers? Yeah… that doesn’t sound like Christianity. As an agnostic, I really don’t care about the statues. I do care that they spent 850K of taxpayer money to decorate yet another temple to government. If the statues were donated, I doubt it would have raised nearly as much ire.
At least with Islam, there will be no statures of Big Mo (PBUH..or else!).. At least we can be content that the ACLU leadership will be tossed off of buildings in Boston … just after the call to prayer.
The communist founded Anti Christian Legal Unit strike again.
Short history:
The ACLU developed from the National Civil Liberties Bureau (CLB), co-founded in 1917 during World War I by Crystal Eastman, an attorney activist, and Roger Nash Baldwin.[98] The focus of the CLB was on freedom of speech, primarily anti-war speech, and on supporting conscientious objectors who did not want to serve in World War I.
On January 19, 1920, the CLB directors formed an organization under a new name, the American Civil Liberties Union. During the 1920s, the ACLU’s primary focus was on freedom of speech in general and speech within the labor movement particularly. In addition to labor, the ACLU also led efforts in non-labor arenas, for example, promoting free speech in public schools.
Government officials routinely hounded the Communist Party USA, leading it to be the primary client of the ACLU. At the same time, the Communists were very aggressive in their tactics, often engaging in illegal conduct such as denying their party membership under oath. This led to frequent conflicts between the Communists and ACLU.
So no the ACLU was not founded by communists per say but became associated with them. Of course that was then. Now…
I think the ACLU used to provide a needed role. Somewhere along the way it was captured by the progressives as they’ve captured the ADL and the schools and the universities and a lot of other things. That is when the political rot set in and they lost their way by purposively veering from nonpartisan to strictly partisan,
BTW free speech was a problem during WW1. The progressive Wilson wanted no criticism of his WW1 decision and hired upwards of 100K political commissars to stamp it out.
I fail to see where they could even show standing for this case. Just being a taxpayer and having your money stolen in taxes is not enough as we have seen many times over. So what was the harm that they suffered?
This is stupid. I’m not Catholic and frankly I don’t like the religion or their hierarchy but frankly that doesn’t matter. I don’t think these are there to be religious symbols and so I have no problem with them. Let them remain as symbols of the function the tenants of the building perform. There are more important things than need consideration.
The cost of the statues is a completely different matter. That can be best handled at the ballot box.
A Moses statue dominates the Worcester Massachusetts District Courthouse. As a Buddhist I find this highly offensive.
Not smiling with a big enough tummy for you?
When you rub his tummy, you don’t get enlightenment, you get breadcrumbs in your hair,
The face of a man who doesn’t understand the difference between government establishing a religion vs. the free exercise of an already established religion:
https://notablepeopleproject.org/scott_l_kafker
Hey, this is the same court that decided that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to Massachusetts citizens. Really.
So happy when that decision got shoved back up their keister by McDonald.
That court is the absolute home of outcome-based decision-making.
This reminds of the bruhaha surrounding the ten commandments. In that case the person who wanted them everywhere wanted them for religious reasons so I was against it. If he just wanted it as a symbol of laws then I would have no problem with it. I forgot how the supreme court ruled.
Secularism is such a vicious religion. Its god is a jealous god.
Wikipedia sez:
Michael, also called Archangel Michael or Michael the Taxiarch, is an archangel and the warrior of God in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam while additionally being venerated as a saint in some Christian traditions.
FWIW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)
So IF the Archangel Michael is someONE in Islam, what the heck is there reason to be upset? I bet there is some Islamic group working with the ACLU. Better check.
I am not Roman Catholic but seriously, what’s the big deal? The ACLU seems to be arguing that Roman Catholicism is impermissible, these statues have a Roman Catholic association, ergo these statues are impermissible, and that would appear to be in breach of the Constitution. Of course IANAL.
Worse, the court’s ruling that “divisive political potential” is the bar to rule by means anything to do with abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, and anything else Woke, is impermissible because it’s politically divisive, except the court doesn’t apply that standard in those cases.
Seems like classic Leftism – rules for thee and thine, other rules for me and mine, so #$%^& off Red trash. Is it any wonder America is so divided and embittered?
When does MA start burning down the cathedrals and erecting mosques in their place?
I hate even driving through that state.
To dispense, with the issue of standing, challenges under the First Amendment to Establishment of Religion is the one area where being a taxpayer gives you standing, under Flast v. Cohen (1968). Moreover, this is case brought under the Massachusetts equivalent of the First Amendment, in a Massachusetts court, so standing is a matter of state law, not federal law.
** ** **
The last Supreme Court pronouncement on an analogous issue in 2019 allowed the Bladensburg cross to stand on the basis that while it was a Christian symbol, had acquired a secular meaning as a war memorial during WWI, so as a matter of federal law the city of Quincy would likely win, but Massachusetts is allowed to have a stricter “no Establishment” rule as long as it does not impinge on Free Exercise, which this ruling does not.
On the other hand, the state “Muslim promotion commission” almost certainly violates both the state and federal Constitutions.
** ** **
In hyper-woke circles, there is now a three-tier partisan divide (which of course does not comport with the US Constitution or Civil Rights laws, but challenging unlawful actions is a game of whack-a-mole):
a. Muslims, non-Asians with brown or black skin and persons with non-majority sexual orientation or identification are all entitled to special solicitude, and giving benefits to them cannot be challenged.
b. White Christians, Jews and Asians need no assistance, and so (i) they cannot be granted any special benefits and (ii) disadvantaging them to benefit the groups in “a” is acceptable even where it is a zero-sum game. (See Roland Fryer’s recent WSJ column in which he justifies DEI as a way to give people an initial chance, challenging it only insofar as those who cannot perform are never dropped, and uncharacteristically ignores that initial set-asides hurt many other more qualified individuals.)
c. Muslim antisemitism is part of their religion and therefore cannot be challenged. Besides, Jews have been so successful that they can bear even more hurt than any other group with no recourse.
Cynical? Yes, but consistent with the facts.
Would there be work around solution? Relocate to private parcel across the street?
We tend to forger the second part of the establishment clause; “or prohibit the exercise thereof”.
People worthy of being celebrated for achievements are now banned from the public square based on religion.