Inside The Court Case Regarding 2 Catholic Saints
(ANALYSIS) A preliminary injunction issued last fall by a Massachusetts judge put an unexpected pause on what was a local dispute in the city of Quincy.
But the legal and cultural stakes extend far beyond the city regarding two statues and one municipal building. In this case, the 10-foot statues are new — part of a $170 million project — not relics of a distant past, and feature St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian.
At a time when statues are coming down, this is a case about two going up.
At issue is a perennial American tension: When does civic symbolism cross the line into unconstitutional endorsement of religion? The judge’s order leaned heavily on the legacy of John Adams, who authored the Massachusetts Constitution. By invoking Article 3’s prohibition on government favoritism among religious sects, the ruling argued the dispute was within a distinctly Massachusetts tradition — one that predates the federal Constitution’s First Amendment jurisprudence.
The contested statues at the heart of the disagreement represent tradition, valor and the shared culture of first responders, according to some city officials, including Mayor Tom Koch. For the plaintiffs, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, their Catholic identity makes them inappropriate fixtures for a taxpayer-funded building.
This dual identity — both religious and cultural — is precisely what makes the case difficult. Courts have long wrestled with symbols that carry both meanings.
Nativity scenes, Ten Commandments displays and crosses used in public memorials have triggered litigation. The legal question tends to turn on context: Are these objects primarily devotional or have they been sufficiently secularized by history and usage?
Legal precedent: Neutrality vs. tradition
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown increasing sympathy toward historical practices with religious elements, particularly when framed as a longstanding tradition rather than active proselytizing.
The explicit identification of the figures as Catholic saints may distinguish them from more ambiguous symbols.
The decision, for now, to block the installation, while allowing the case to proceed, signals that the plaintiffs’ claims are not frivolous. By rejecting the city’s motion to dismiss, the judge affirmed that the question of “religious neutrality” deserves full judicial scrutiny. However, this is essentially, according to supporters of the statues, a religious freedom case.
In an interview with Fox News, Joe Davis, who serves as senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said the city’s plan to erect statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian reflected a centuries-old artistic and cultural tradition of honoring courage and sacrifice, not a violation of the Constitution’s separation of church and state.
“This case is about a city trying to beautify a public space and honor those who put their lives on the line every day,” Davis said. “These are figures that are important to firefighters and police officers around the world. The purpose of these statues is to inspire and encourage the people who work there.”
Doctrine and politics
Beyond doctrine, the $850,000 already spent on the statues adds another layer to this contentious debate. Even if the city ultimately prevails, the controversy risks becoming a cautionary tale about process: How cultural gestures, however well-intentioned, can backfire when they intersect with public funding and multicultural communities.
It was in May 2025 when the ACLU of Massachusetts, joined by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, filed a lawsuit on behalf of 15 residents from various faith traditions. Months earlier, the ACLU had warned city officials in a Feb. 24 letter that the plan “plainly violates” the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
“Placing larger-than-life statues of Catholic saints in front of a public building unequivocally advances one religion to the exclusion of all others,” the letter added.
But the city’s planned appeal could push the case into higher courts, potentially clarifying how Massachusetts interprets its own constitution in relation to religious imagery. A final ruling — whether upholding or striking down the statues — will likely set a precedent affecting municipalities across the state.
More broadly, the case reflects a shifting landscape. As American communities grow more religiously diverse — and more secular in some quarters — the margin for what is considered a shared symbol narrows. What once felt universal may now feel exclusionary.
The Becket Fund, which specializes in defending religious freedom in public life, has vowed to continue the legal fight.
“If we say that a symbol cannot be displayed in public just because it has religious associations for some, that’s going to require us to take down quite a bit of public imagery across this country,” Davis said. “At the U.S. Supreme Court, there’s a statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. It has religious meaning, yes, but it also symbolizes law and justice. The same is true here.”
Clemente Lisi serves as executive editor at Religion Unplugged.