Public buildings and Religious figures: The Line Between Civic Recognition and Religious Endorsement

Government neutrality toward religion does not always require removing religious symbols from public spaces. On the other hand, the government cannot use public property to favor one religion over others. A recent 2026 case, Fitzmaurice v. The City of Quincy, raised the question of where the line falls between these two principles. The case involves two statues of Catholic saints that Quincy planned to install above its new public safety building. While the statues have clear religious significance, the city argues it selected them because of their longstanding connections to police officers and firefighters. I believe concerns about the statues' size and placement are reasonable, but their Catholic roots alone should not determine their constitutionality. The more important question is whether the city is promoting Catholicism or recognizing symbols with legitimate civic meaning.

The controversy began when Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch commissioned two ten-foot bronze statues of Saint Michael the Archangel and Saint Florian. Saint Michael is traditionally associated with police officers, whereas Saint Florian is the patron saint of firefighters. The Saint Michael statue depicts him with wings, carrying a shield and standing over a demon. In contrast, the Saint Florian statue shows him pouring water over a burning building that houses police, fire, emergency services, and other public offices. The city had already spent more than $760,000 on them, and the final cost was expected to reach about $850,000.

This case became more controversial because most City Council members and the public did not know about the statues until after they had been commissioned. After the plan became public, many residents attended meetings and voiced their concerns. There was, in fact, even an online petition that received more than 1,600 signatures, and several local religious leaders argued that placing Catholic figures on a municipal building would coerce residents of other religions to feel excluded. Fifteen residents eventually sued Quincy under Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. A lower Court temporarily blocked the installation, and the statues are being kept in storage in the meantime.

In Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not decide that the statues definitely violated the state constitution. Instead, the court upheld the preliminary injunction, finding that the residents were likely to succeed and that the statues should remain in storage while the lawsuit is ongoing. The main constitutional issue is whether Quincy’s plan represents a permissible recognition of symbols connected to public service or government endorsement of Catholicism. There is no general rule that prevents the government from displaying an object merely because it has a religious origin. The problem arises only when the government’s purpose is to give one religion a preferred position.

The residents' strongest argument concerns how the display would appear in practice. Both statues are large, new, and closely associated with Catholic beliefs. They would also stand alone as the only ‘decorations’ in front of a building used by residents of every religion, as well as some with none. Residents represented by the ACLU argue that this would signal government approval of Catholicism. Even if the city’s stated purpose is secular, the display could still lead some residents to believe their government values one faith more than another reasonably. The lack of transparency around commissioning these figures raises doubts that their purpose was entirely civic.

Quincy, however, has a reasonable argument that the statues represent more than something merely Catholic. Saint Michael is commonly used in police imagery, awards, and professional traditions. The Florian Cross appears on fire-department badges throughout Massachusetts, and Saint Florian has become a symbol of courage and sacrifice among firefighters. The city’s attorneys argue that these figures were selected to honor first responders rather than encourage Catholic worship. No visitor would be required to pray, participate in a religious ceremony, or merely accept Catholic worship. From this perspective, the government is recognizing the professional importance of the figures rather than endorsing their religious meaning.

The court relied on Colo v. Treasurer & Receiver General, which explains that questions involving religion and government require consideration of history, purpose, effect, and political divisiveness. These factors support both sides. The statutes have a secular purpose because they honor police officers and firefighters, but their isolated placement could create the effect of religious endorsement. History also matters. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court allowed a cross-shaped war memorial to remain on public land because it had developed a commemorative meaning beyond its religious origin. The Quincy statues are new, but the Saints' connection to first responders is long-standing in American history. Therefore, the statues' age should be considered alongside the history of the traditions they represent.

The use of public money also deserves attention. Quincy paid for the artwork directly, but the money did not go to the Catholic Church, fund worship, or support religious instruction. The statues would remain as city property; this differs from the government directly financing a religious organization, although the city is still responsible for the message communicated by artwork it selects and purchases. Because this is government speech rather than private religious expression, Quincy must make sure the display does not suggest that Catholicism has an official or preferred status.

The court acted reasonably by keeping the statues in storage while it examined the case more fully. However, that temporary decision should not automatically lead to a permanent prohibition. If Quincy can show the statues were selected for their professional meaning and clearly explain that purpose through a plaque or a broader public-service display, their religious origins should not make them unconstitutional. Religious neutrality is better protected when the government neither promotes a particular faith nor excludes a civic symbol solely because it connects to religion.