There is controversy in Massachusetts, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, with Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. These organizations sued the City of Quincy and its mayor, Thomas P. Koch, on behalf of residents over the proposed placement of statues of Saint Florian and Michael the Archangel, widely recognized symbols of protection for first responders, on a new public safety headquarters building.
After a trial court granted the requested injunction, Massachusetts’ highest court agreed to hear a direct appeal to decide the fate of the statues.
Given the far-reaching questions Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy raises about freedom of religion in the public “marketplace of ideas,” this column reviews its background and the trial court’s order before offering analysis and commentary on its significance.
Background to Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy
City of Quincy began after Mayor Koch ordered two ten-foot bronze statues of Florian and Michael the Archangel from Italy in early February 2025 to be installed on the city’s new public safety headquarters at a cost, to date, of $850,000. Koch testified that their “selection” “had nothing to do with Catholic sainthood.”
The statue of Florian, a fourth-century Roman soldier and Christian martyr who pioneered firefighting brigades, depicts him pouring water on a burning building. The Archangel Michael statue, who is associated with defense against evil, displays angel wings while holding a shield as he vanquishes a demon.
Both figures are identified worldwide with firefighters and police, reflecting their depictions in Western art for centuries.
As hundreds of city residents opposed the plan, on April 4, 2025, leaders of nineteen local faith groups “express[ed] ‘grave concerns’” about the statues. Conversely, on January 5, 2026, though, supporters rallied in favor of the statues.
On May 5, 2025, the ACLU sued the city and the mayor in his official capacity on behalf of fifteen residents objecting to the statues as violating prohibitions against religion in Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, (discussed below).
The plaintiffs further alleged that seeing the statues by driving past them or if they had to enter the building, “go[es] against [their] beliefs” while “send[ing] an exclusionary message to non-Catholics…mak[ing them] feel excluded.”
The plaintiffs added that Koch planned for the statues without notifying the city council or the public.
Trial Court Opinion
In granting the ACLU’s motion for a preliminary injunction on October 14, 2025, the judge largely grounded his order in 1971’s Lemon v. Kertzman. Under Lemon, governmental action must “[f]irst have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’”
The judge applied Lemon even while acknowledging that the Supreme Court clearly repudiated it in 2022’s Kennedy v. Bremerton, upholding the rights of a football coach in Washington to pray on the field after games. The Justices reasoned that “this Court long ago abandoned Lemon…,” explaining that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted in ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.'”
The judge applied Lemon because Massachusetts’ highest court continues to do so. The judge, again ignoring the defendant’s First Amendment rights, refused to apply Kennedy because “[s]uch a result is incompatible with our State constitutional provisions.”
In granting the injunction, the judge thought that the plaintiffs would succeed because the statues had the primary effect of advancing religion and could cause political divisiveness. The judge then feared that some “[v]ictims and witnesses entering such a building often must overcome emotional and psychological hurdles,” worrying “whether the police will treat their claims with the gravity warranted and treat them equally as any other individual, regardless of religious beliefs.”
The judge thereby decreed that because the plaintiffs might suffer irreparable injury if the statues were erected, they were entitled to an injunction.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the city and Koch, with support from a dozen organizations that submitted friend-of the court-briefs, requested a direct appeal from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts so the case did not first have to go before an intermediate appellate panel.
The court heard oral arguments on May 6, 2026, and should render a judgment before too long.
Analysis and Commentary
It is worth reflecting on the status of the statues of Saint Florian and Archangel Michael, who, in particular, is “represented in scripture in Jewish, Muslim, and various Christian traditions.” As the brief of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the highly successful “non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths,” representing Koch and the city highlights, depictions of saints revered by the Catholic Church and other faith traditions are frequently displayed in public spaces across Massachusetts and the Nation.
As evidence of the widespread use of religious statues, Moses is displayed in Boston’s John Adams Courthouse, David is in the Massachusetts State House, and Saint Pope John Paul II is on Boston Common. Further, many displays of religious figures, including Muhammad, King Solomon, and Moses, are in the United States Supreme Court, while the Capitol’s Statuary Hall exhibits such diverse faith-based figures as Brigham Young, Billy Graham, and two Catholic saints, Fathers Junipero Serra and Damien of Molokai.
Regardless of what one thinks of the figures displayed in these statues, they have often assumed secular, rather than religious-devotional, roles as artwork worldwide.
The trial court judge ignored both basic principles of constitutional law and clear Supreme Court precedent by finding in favor of the plaintiffs. What the judge missed, or perhaps ignored, is that Mayor Koch and the city have an unmistakable First Amendment right to religious freedom according to which “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Ignoring the primacy of federal law, the judge failed to apply the First Amendment in City of Quincy, even though it applies because the Justices extended it to the states in the 1940s Cantwell v. Connecticut. In Cantwell, the County invalidated the convictions of Jehovah’s Witnesses for violating a local statute against soliciting funds for religious, charitable, or philanthropic purposes without prior approval of public officials because the First Amendment takes precedence over state law.
Equally important, the judge ignored Supreme Court precedent from 2020’s Espinoza v. Montana in relying on Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights’ assertion that “all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.”
Yet, neither the plaintiffs nor the judge could identify a single case from Massachusetts relying on this language to prohibit a passive display of public art, such as the issue here, due to its perceived religious significance.
Espinoza is crucial because even though it addressed the denial of neutral, generally available aid in the form of a tax credit program for parents and others to contribute to student scholarship organizations under the state constitutional prohibition of public aid to “sectarian” schools, it enunciated a principle directly applicable in City of Quincy.
In other words, the judge somehow missed, or maybe ignored, that just as the Supreme Court explained in Espinoza, because Montana could not separate religion and the government more strictly than the Federal Constitution in invalidating the tax credit program, neither could the plaintiffs rely on Massachusetts’ Declaration of Rights to limit the defendants’ Federal Free Exercise rights by banning the statues.
Another troubling aspect of City of Quincy is the attitude of the plaintiffs. For instance, while the named plaintiff identified in the ACLU’s complaint left the Catholic Church as a child, even though she claims its teachings still inform some of her beliefs, she still opposed the statues. Another plaintiff “was frightened by the existence and planned installation of these statues,” worrying that minority faiths are ignored.
It is difficult to understand how these plaintiffs refused to respect the diversity of religious freedom rights of Americans with whom they disagree or differ.
The final confounding element in City of Quincy concerns the trial court judge’s attitude towards and comments about the police. The judge expressed fear that the two passive, minimally religious statues serving as symbols of support for first responders who voluntarily risk their lives for others, rather than as devotional in nature, might, without evidence, motivate police officials to neglect their duties. It is unfortunate that the judge apparently thought so little of the police that, absent any justification, he questioned their integrity and commitment to their duties because of the possible presence of the statues.
I plan to write a follow-up when Massachusetts’ highest court rules, so stay tuned.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I’m saddened by the antipathy toward the statues, but is anyone really surprised? When you consider that some people try to get plaques of the Ten Commandments removed from 19th-century buildings, despite their being part of the building’s original design and architectural integrity, is it surprising that there’d be a move to halt statues of religious figures from being installed in contemporary buildings?
It’s not surprising, unfortunately, but it is deeply diagnostic of our culture’s continued slide away from God and everything religious into spiritual darkness.
Someone who claims to be “frightened” by seeing a statue of someone extinguishing a fire is either a liar or psychotic.
Give them slack, their just being awkward.
Well put, just like the others, Thomas, Joseph and others. Thanks.
It boggles my mind that a court relied on this
Further, in relying on Lemon, a case the Supreme Court clearly repudiated, there is no way this should stand but it is in MA.
Charlie
A liar, psychotic, or a pyromaniac!
Good point Thomas. If I’m ‘frightened’ by driving past and seeing a Planned Parenthood sign, should the sign be removed?
Petty for all concerned. Surprised in this economy it happened at all. Christians should back off in deference to our weaker brothers. We know that the Angels are there anyway they can’t banish them! Perhaps a rereading of the sermon on the Mount would be good for us all.
Yes, right. The problem is actually with believers and not with those who love darkness rather than light (sarc). I see that your time away from the site has not given you any greater moral or spiritual clarity.
Please explain your 3rd sentence. Thanks.
The Vatican has embraced Islam with “all paths lead to god” … must worshippers of “Demon Lord BAAL the deceiver” be allowed to flourish so that good people’s faith in a Christian God be strengthened???
The plaintiffs are snowflakes. They should grow up and get a real life.
Same judge would most likely approve a statue of the orange clown
The Florida orange growers have a clown? Must be a real hoot but they need to use water in their squirt guns not orange juice that burns the eyes….
Kristelle: whom are you referring to?
This is a good ruling reinforcing the secular nature of our plural society.
Well there’s that leftist emotional reaction again.
Care to remove Mohammed off the Supreme Court Building?
The sculpture is part of the frieze on the north wall of the United States Supreme Court’s courtroom, designed by sculptor Adolph A. Weinman (1870-1952). Architect Cass Gilbert commissioned the project in the early 1930s. The figure depicts Muhammad as a lawgiver holding the Quran.
Self-defeating assertion since they’re dismantling the plurality. A solid reasoning would have an account of why the statues pose no threat to plurality and why they would in fact have a place of their own. In addition, not to have minorities and the overly sensitive dictating to everyone what plurality must be so that it “doesn’t offend them” and/or “doesn’t offend your typical joe” according to some formulation of “typical joe in plurality”.
Susanne:
Your self-assured, yet liberal influenced ignorance of the history of America’s founding and its Constitution and Declaration of Independence never cease to be astounding.
A secular society is ultimately an impossibility. God is not the non-existent would-be bystander leftists would have Him be. It is not possible to keep God and natural law out of anything, as the founders recognized, and which the whole nation reaffirmed in countless ways through its history, including the civil war, which was fought to sustain the recognition of divine imperatives over the caprices of social, cultural, and government corruptions.
It matters not at all that a weak and fallen humanity constantly violates natural law, but God can never be excluded from the human condition, even when corrupt judges usurp unconstitutional power to impose their “progressive” ignorance and agenda against received truth and ennobling symbols.
My name is Alden. My great grandfather to 6th generation was the 7th signer of the Mayflower Compact. For Masachuzetts to be so silly and blind — glad some of John and Priscillas descendants left the colony for the frontier. Anyway — John was not a separatist he was one of the Strangers. He married Priscilla Mullins who was a religious separatist. Their colony definitely brought God with them. Anyway — my middle son’s middle name is Michael after the Archangel. His eldest son’s middle name is also Michael.
Where I live — they still allow a nod to saints. What next?? Saint Augustine, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco– I wait for the day t he left wing nuts try and change those name because they represent SAINTS.
WHAT planet am I living on? The foolish and short sighted are running it into the ground!!
They could just rename the statue to Hunter Biden, would that work?
Dear Knowall. You may look at the Manchild Trump, who has GOLD everywhere. All of this and our synophant GOP Congress remains largely silent. Just a few…
Convicted criminal sitting at the Resolute desk, gloating over his “renovation” in GOLD LEAF.
The 22‑foot gold‑leafed statue, dubbed the “Don Colossus,” was erected at Trump’s Doral golf course.
President Donald Trump fired off an angry 400-word rant after it was revealed that his controversial renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool will cost a lot more taxpayer funds than he said.
Unauthorized mounting his name before JFK’s at the Kennedy Center, which he appointed himself as Master.
Unlawfully placing an unfurling flag at the entrance to the DOJ, showing his scowling image.
Golden Statue of Trump unveiled outside US Capitol in Washington DC
12-foot golden statue of Trump holding Bitcoin unveiled outside the US Capitol.
A giant golden Donald Trump statue in New York.
Please pick up where you left off.
Thanks
Morgan: your TDS problem is unresolved. Time to return to therapy.
Diogenese, your failed response promotes exactly what you portray… ignorance of reality. You should not broadbrush your reply. Tell me exactly where I failed to tell the truth!!! Common sense always wins.
Thanks. mD
This has nothing to do with Trump or an other President that has a statue. Nobody is informed or edified by your emetic threadjacking.
I’m going to ask the question the rest of the readers want to know. What is wrong with you?
Mr Morgan, presidential statues abound in the US. Whether or not we appreciate the president they represent or the artist, it’s been a thing for over 200 years.
Mrsc. Comparing other presidents to President Trump, a convicted criminal, offers little in facts. What other presidents were obsessed with gold? It’s not just a massive gold display that includes the Oval Office, even a solid gold paper weight; it’s Trump’s raging EGO placing his name on the Kennedy Center ahead of the murdered JFK. Displaying his photo on a flag unfurled at the entrance to HIS DOJ.
As with Pope Loe, our Catholic morals should cause us to reflect on the disaster of Trump’s war with Iran, and the ripple effect it has had on the economy and the cost of living, reaching new highs, causing havoc in the supermarkets and the gas pumps on the lower income souls.
Just the facts.
Thank you.
Thanks for bringing to our attention another instance of a lower court ignoring Supreme Court precedence. I’m trying to understand the extent to which this happens. Every report about it helps.
Well I for one dont see what authority a judge has to ban any statues.
They were paid for with public monies for a public building in violation of the state’s laws. That is the authority of the judge.
And the state law was struck down by SCOTUS. leaving the “authority” of the judge acting on a law that does not exixt one of judicial tyranny.
OF COURSE the trial judge relied upon Lemon, to reach the outcome he personally desired! Groan… Dr. Russo makes a great point here regarding Espinoza’s applicability to this case. Looking forward to the follow-up!
The government needs to return all the religious art hanging on the walls of the National Gallery of Art in D.C. to the Catholic Church to whom they originally belonged.
Well most of it was actually donated by private persons, so there is that.
The Smithsonian is a govetnment-run operation. So there is that.
What the hell? I agree that we should object to the statue being removed, but I am appalled that worrying about a statue of my Saint Archangel Michael, with little attention to the massive problem of the world.
With the US economy tanking, perhaps we should direct our attention to helping a person in need. A senior nursing home is a good start. I brought my Golden Retriever. Don’t forget yours.
The Dow Jones was over 50,000 this past week, Mr Morgan. It’s not a sign of recession.
Based on what principle(s) do the plaintiffs allege that these statues “…go against their beliefs?” Exactly why do they think that something which “…[goes] against their beliefs” carries Constitutional weight?
I guess the fragile snowflakes have never traveled to and experienced the architecture of Western Europe or to the many cities in California named after saints and angels. Or maybe they have and they just brought vomit bags with them.