Judge Bars Saints’ Statues From Massachusetts Public Safety Building — for Now

State trial court judge says St. Michael and St. Florian statues ‘patently endorse Catholic beliefs.’ The mayor says the city will appeal.

A Massachusetts trial-court judge has issued an order blocking the installation of statues of two Catholic saints on a new public-safety building in the city of Quincy, setting up a likely appeal that may determine how the state treats separation-of-church-and-state disputes going forward.

The 10-foot-high bronze statues of St. Michael and St. Florian, which were scheduled to be installed on the building’s façade this month, will instead await a higher court’s decision.

The statues cost an estimated $850,000, part of the new, $175-million public-safety building that will serve as police headquarters and administration offices for the Boston suburb’s fire department.

Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, a practicing Catholic, has said he chose St. Michael the Archangel because he is the patron of police officers and St. Florian because he is the patron of firefighters, not to send a message about religion.

But the judge said the statues can’t be separated from the saints’ Catholic connections.

“The Complaint here plausibly alleges that the statues at issue convey a message endorsing one religion over others,” Norfolk County Superior Court Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 26-page ruling Oct. 14.

The judge noted that the statues “represent two Catholic saints.”

“The statues, particularly when considered together, patently endorse Catholic beliefs,” the judge wrote.

The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the statues — 15 city residents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts — have amassed facts that “plausibly suggest that an objective observer would view these statues on the façade of the public safety building as primarily endorsing Catholicism/Christianity and conveying a distinctly religious message,” the judge wrote.

Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, who argued the case during a lengthy court hearing on Sept. 19, praised the judge’s decision.

“This ruling affirms the bedrock principle that our government cannot favor one religion above others, or religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs,” Davidson said in a written statement. “We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state, as the Massachusetts Constitution requires.”

The mayor said the city will appeal.

“We chose the statues of Michael and Florian to honor Quincy’s first responders, not to promote any religion,” Koch said in a written statement provided to the Register by a spokesman. “These figures are recognized symbols of courage and sacrifice in police and fire communities across the world. We will appeal this ruling so our city can continue to celebrate and inspire the men and women who protect us.” The lawsuit, which was filed May 27 in Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, relies on the Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, but there is a tie-in.

In 1979, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 three-pronged “Lemon test” when considering church-and-state cases — whether a law concerning religion has “a secular legislative purpose,” whether “its principal or primary effect … neither advances [n]or inhibits religion,” and whether it fosters “excessive entanglement between government and religion.”

The state’s highest court also added a fourth standard — whether a “challenged practice” has “divisive political potential.”

But in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ditched the Lemon test, in a case involving prayers offered by a high-school football coach in Washington state called Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of state law, takes the Quincy statues dispute, it would be the first time the court has considered a case on point since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kennedy decision.