The state’s Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit over Quincy’s plan to install statues of two Catholic saints in front of the city’s new public safety building.
In October, a Superior Court judge temporarily blocked the installation of the ten-foot statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian — the patron saints of police and firefighters, respectively — after finding it would violate Article III of the Massachusetts Constitution, which mandates government neutrality in matters of religion.
Joseph Davis, an attorney representing the city, told the court’s justices that St. Michael and St. Florian have significance not just for Catholics but for members of other faiths, and that their meaning for police and firefighters transcends the religious sphere.
“Firefighters and police officers across the Commonwealth and the country understand the figures of Florian and Michael to symbolize the values of courage and self sacrifice that they seek to embody in their professions,” Davis said. “The city of Quincy does not violate [the state constitution] by honoring its first responders with statues of these figures.”
Jessie Rossman, the ACLU of Massachusetts’ legal director, argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, a group of residents that opposes the installation. Rossman countered that the statues are effectively saturated with meaning linked to Catholicism, irrespective of any additional significance they have for first responders and adherents of other religions.
“The purpose, the inspirational power of these two statues is inextricably intertwined with its religious underpinning,” Rossman said.
“St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, as they are depicted on this building, directly reflect the Catholic iconography,” Rossman added a few minutes later. “And I want to be clear. If there was a statue that directly reflected another religion — if there were two ten-foot-tall Jewish stars, or two ten-foot-tall moon and crescent and stars that are outside the building, it would pose the same issue.”
The justices struck a skeptical note with both sides. They pushed Davis to admit that no similar statues exist at public safety buildings elsewhere in the Commonwealth, and to acknowledge the “clandestine” manner in which Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch formulated plans for the statues, which together cost an estimated $850,000, without opportunities for public input.
Meanwhile, the justices suggested to Rossman that not allowing the Quincy statues might run afoul of more recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The U.S. Supreme Court is really concerned about government action that appears to be hostile to religion … We can’t provide less protection than the Supreme Court,” said Associate Justice Scott Kafker. ”We can’t allow more hostility to religion than the Supreme Court would tolerate, and they have very low tolerance.”
“I want to be very clear on the record, your honor … There is no potential violation of federal law that is posed by the reliefs the plaintiffs are seeking here,” Rossman responded, referencing their desire to have the installation permanently blocked.
The SJC usually issues decisions within 130 days of oral arguments, meaning a ruling in this case, Fitzmaurice et al. v. City of Quincy et al., can be expected in late summer or early fall.
