Massachusetts’ highest court has upheld a block on a city effort to display two 10-foot-tall bronze statues of Catholic saints on a new government building.
Quincy city officials were recently sued by an interfaith group of residents opposed to adding statues of Saint Michael the Archangel and Saint Florian to the building’s façade.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling on Thursday in Fitzmaurice et al. v. City of Quincy, affirming a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking the installation of the statues. The ruling does not resolve the underlying lawsuit, which continues in Norfolk Superior Court.
Justice Scott L. Kafker authored the unanimous court opinion, writing that while the two saints “have both religious and secular significance,” they are “closely associated with the Catholic faith” and thus “could be viewed by the public as endorsement of a particular religion.”
“In sum, the preliminary injunction record reflects that the statues are large and will stand alone, they are brand new rather than long standing, they are closely affiliated with a particular religion, and they thus may convey to observing members of the public implicit government support for that religion and, as a result, subordination of other religions,” wrote Kafker.
“[T]he plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the city has violated important constitutional rights and has spent, and plans to continue to spend, taxpayer dollars in violation of those rights that will not be recoverable.”
Jessie Rossman, legal director at the liberal legal organization the ACLU of Massachusetts, which helped to represent the plaintiffs, issued a statement celebrating the state high court ruling.
“Here in Massachusetts, our state constitution is clear: the government must remain neutral in matters of religion and must not elevate one faith above others,” said Rossman. “With today’s landmark ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court affirms those principles, which are the essential foundation of a pluralistic society where people of all faiths and no faith can flourish.”
Claire Fitzmaurice, a Quincy resident and lead plaintiff in the case, also welcomed the ruling.
“I’m thrilled with this ruling and I’m relieved that these statues will not be installed while we pursue our case against the city,” Fitzmaurice said. “I believe that Quincy should be a place where we welcome people from all faiths and backgrounds. To have these imposing religious statues looming over the entrance of the public safety building would fly in the face of that pluralistic ideal — especially as our city continues to grow more diverse. I look forward to our next day in court.”
In addition to the ACLU, the local residents suing the city are also represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Cloherty & Steinberg LLP.
Quincy officials garnered controversy and litigation after deciding to add the bronze statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, patron saints of police and firefighters, to their new public safety building. Mayor Thomas Koch had already commissioned the statues, at a cost to taxpayers of at least $850,000, according to The Patriot Ledger.
In an interview with AM Quincy in February 2025, Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch defended the statutes, calling them “beautiful public art” that he does not consider “specifically as religious.”
“It’s not like Tom Koch is imparting an image, trying to put on the fire, police. That image has been related to both of those services for decades across the world, not just here in Quincy,” said Koch. “I think people in the end will understand that it’s beautiful public art, and it connects with both the fire service and the police service.”
Last October, Massachusetts Superior Court Justice William F. Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction against Quincy officials from including the two statues on the façade.
Sullivan ruled the plaintiffs, an interfaith group of local residents, have “demonstrated that they are likely to succeed at proving that the permanent display of the oversized overtly religious-looking statues have a primary effect of advancing religion.”
In February, the religious liberty law firm Becket filed a brief to the Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of the city, arguing that “merely observing public symbols one finds disagreeable is not a cognizable injury.”
“The placement of inanimate statues as public art on a public building does not implicate direct support of religion in any manner, let alone the subordination by law of some faiths to others,” continued the brief.
“Indeed, public symbols with indisputable religious significance have long been commonplace in this Commonwealth. Few know that as well as this Court—which sits in a courthouse adorned with statues of Moses and ‘Religion.’”
While the statues remain blocked for now, the case has been sent back to the Norfolk Superior Court.
