This newsletter is free and goes out to over 25,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo, CashApp, or PayPal.
In a major ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will block the city of Quincy from erecting two expensive Catholic statues at the new “public safety headquarters.” The decision upholds an earlier preliminary injunction from a lower court judge while litigation proceeds. Church/state separation groups had sued to prevent the statues from going up, and those statues are currently sitting in storage.
I first wrote about this controversy last year when Quincy officials announced that their new $175 million headquarters, which would house the police department as well as the administrative offices for the fire department and emergency management, would include those religious statues. Specifically, the entrance to the building would feature two ten-foot-tall bronze statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian—the patron saints of police and firefighters.
Those statues were never presented to city council members when they were approving funding for the project between 2017 and 2022. Even more appalling, though, was the cost to taxpayers: $850,000, according to the Patriot Ledger, which first broke this story.
Not only were these statues religious icons that had no business in a government facility—much less at taxpayers’ expense—they were apparently approved by Mayor Thomas Koch without any feedback from or awareness by local officials.
Asked why the statues weren’t shown to councilors when they approved funding for the project at various points between 2017 and 2022, Mayor Thomas Koch said large projects like this one sometimes “evolve” and the idea “wasn’t on the table” when councilors cast their votes.
“You continue to revise,” Koch said. “The bottom line doesn’t change.”
These were Catholic statues that belonged in a church, not symbols of justice and safety meant for public consumption. They served no purpose. If you need religious icons to improve and beautify a $175 million facility, it’s time to fire the designers.
More importantly, these statues sent a message that non-Catholics were not welcome in this community. At the very least, non-Catholics were considered second-class citizens. It’s the worst possible message for public safety officials to send to people who may need their help. It’s the opposite of being welcoming and inclusive.
Koch is, not surprisingly, Catholic. But he attempted to convince council members that the statues had a secular purpose:
Koch said the saints “add interest” and “connect to the uses of the building.” Koch, a devout Catholic, pointed out that St. Michael is a figure common to Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
Neither statue carries strictly religious messages, Koch said, stressing instead their representation of bravery, courage and service, values which he said Quincy’s first responders exemplify.
“It seemed natural to do those images,” he added.
If you want to symbolize bravery and courage and service, and your mind immediately jumps to religion, you can’t argue it’s just “natural.” It’s natural only if you live in a religious bubble. This is the equivalent of putting up a giant Christian cross in front of the building and arguing it’s not religious but rather a secular symbol of peace. (That argument, sadly, has some precedent.)
But the questions didn’t stop Koch from moving full speed ahead with these sculpture. He hired Sergey Eylanbekov to make the designs—it’s not clear if there was even a bidding process for the statues—and they depict a winged St. Michael stomping on a horned demon and St. Florian pouring water on a burning building. (Why would the police department want their symbol to be a “good guy” stepping on the neck of a “bad guy”? Who knows. A depiction of police brutality seems like an image most officials would want to reject, not celebrate.)
One council member didn’t even try to hide the religious intentions of the statues:
Ward 1 Councilor Dave McCarthy, whose district hosts the new headquarters, approved of the statues. McCarthy said he was informed of the plans “a long time ago.”
The statues contain “a great message” and “will bless our first responders,” McCarthy said.
“It might help them,” he added. “They might say a little prayer before they go out on duty.”
If cops and firefighters need prayer to do their jobs well, perhaps the city should be investing more in their training instead of advertising for the Catholic Church.
In any case, once people learned about the statues, the backlash was instantaneous. City council member Dan Minton, a former police lieutenant himself, said on Facebook (in a now-deleted post) that he had no knowledge of these statues and categorically rejected them:
… Although this may provide spiritual comfort to some Officers, religion aside, the image of the angel brandishing a sword or spear to the devil to ward off evil, may not translate to contemporary times.
Although it is only a statue, the violent image is not the way Police Officers conduct themselves. I don’t know if this new statue is going to depict the same violent image but from what I have researched, most do. It made me think of brutal force and I don’t want citizens to connect this statue with the way our Officers treat anyone.
…
The Quincy Police Department has always had a solid reputation of compassion to all, often under unpredictable and stressful circumstances. The statue does not reflect this.
Generally, people don’t want to enter a police station -it is usually something bad that has happened, ranging from an act of violence to a simple parking ticket. The statue may not be a welcoming presence to someone already ill at ease.
The ACLU of Massachusetts also got involved, sending a letter to city officials that said the statues “violate the constitutions of Massachusetts and the United States” and also flew in the face of respect and religious plurality.
… the purpose of the statues is plainly religious. Although Mayor Koch has attempted to justify the statues as symbolizing the “universal concept” of good versus evil, saints are specific to certain sects of Christianity. They are neither ubiquitous nor secular…
By invoking the constitutions, the ACLU suggested that a lawsuit could be filed if the statues went up as intended. They urged the mayor and city council members to “cancel the plans to erect these statues.”
Boston Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham summed it up well:
It’s one thing for a police officer to choose to carry around a medal that her faith says will offer divine protection. It’s entirely another to erect two giant effigies outside a public building that will be used by people of all faiths, or of no faith at all.
When the City Council held its next meeting—shortly after receiving that letter—there was an outcry from the public. An online petition to reject the statues said bluntly: “Mayor Koch, cut our losses and cancel this commission now.” It probably didn’t help that City Council President Ian Cain directed his anger at the anonymous person who informed the public about these statues:
… Cain went on to slam the “cowardice” of an unnamed person who leaked information on the statues to the newspaper.
“This wasn’t meant to open up a discussion with the people who work in government,” Cain said. “This was someone trying to embarrass us, which I don’t appreciate. The council should not be put in a position, whether by the mayor’s office or by anyone who wanted to subvert this, where we appear uninformed. That’s not good faith.”
It’s never good when a city official condemns a person for accurately telling a reporter what the city is doing. It’s only embarrassing because they got caught.
Mayor Koch resisted every attempt to reverse course. He was determined to let non-Catholics know they’re unwanted in this city and anyone who disagreed could just shut the hell up:
When a city councilor asked Koch’s chief of staff what those who oppose the statues should do, he essentially told them to go pound sand.
“Wait for the beautiful public artwork to appear on these buildings and enjoy it with the rest of the public,” advised Chris Walker. “The decision has been made.”
That stubbornness was opening the door to a costly court battle, though.
Shortly after that, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom From Religion Foundation also got involved. AU noted it was acting on behalf of six Quincy residents who had a problem with the statues, and those residents could have standing in a future court case. They also pointed out that these statues were not legal because they were like putting up a Christian Nativity scene outside a courthouse: The only way you could get away with it was by including other religious (or secular) symbols alongside the Catholic ones.
“(Quincy) has far more in common with displays the Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional. ... Here, the two religious figures will be displayed by themselves and are designed to stand out and draw the eye.”
Courts particularly frown on religious messages from the police because they may foster belief that a benefit would come from conversion to Christianity, [AU attorney Ian] Smith writes.
What about the argument made by Koch that these are secular symbols akin to “In God We Trust”? The attorney also shot down that theory:
“The problem with this claim is that police and firefighters don’t invoke these figures for political reasons, they invoke them for religious protection,” Smith wrote. “These images have not been taken out of their religious context − they are used precisely because of their religious context.”
FFRF called on the city to “rescind its plan to place these religious statues in front of its new police headquarters in order to respect the diversity and First Amendment rights of Quincy residents.” Attorney Maddy Ziegler also pointed out the religious history of the statues:
Here, the statues are plainly religious in nature. Saint Florian was a Christian martyr who was canonized by Pope Lucius III. Saint Michael the Archangel is revered in the Catholic faith and plays a crucial role as a “defender of faith, protector of souls, and a symbol of divine justice.” Michael’s role in other faiths does not negate the religious nature of his figure—on the contrary, it further emphasizes that his statue serves no secular purpose. Neither of these figures have any significance outside of religious contexts.
The placement of statues of prominent Catholic figures in front of a government building indicates not only that the city favors religion over non-religion, but Catholicism over all other denominations. That members of a particular religion consider the two patron saints of first responders is irrelevant to the constitutional analysis. Patron saints are still unquestionably religious figures and their statues advance religion on government property.
But the city didn’t budge. Mayor Koch was more eager to promote his religion with taxpayer dollars than focus on the issues that would keep the city safer.
In May of 2025, FFRF, Americans United, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against the city. They represented clients “who practice a variety of faiths, including Catholicism, Judaism, and Unitarianism, as well as [clients who are] Humanist, atheist, spiritual, or do not identify with a single faith or religious organization.”
Those plaintiffs said the statues would, among other things, “violate her religious commitment to peace activism,” “have put her in the uncomfortable position of needing to speak out against statues of Catholic figures,” and “create an association between religion and the police department.”
The lawsuit, filed with the Norfolk Superior Court, said the city was violating Article III of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (i.e. the state constitution), which protected religious equality. The plaintiffs were asking the court to block the statues from going up, to prevent any further funding of those statues, along with all associated legal costs.
“This is a clear breach of the constitutional wall of separation,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Quincy taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for an ostentatiously specific religious display.”
Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, says: “Mayor Koch has made the costly decision to proceed with the unlawful plan to install two larger-than-life statues of Catholic saints at the entrance to a public building in Quincy. This plan was conceived and implemented without public input and with total disregard for the concerns raised by constituents and local faith leaders. The statues send a message that the Quincy government favors one faith above all others. This flagrantly violates our state Constitution.”
“The city has abandoned its constitutional duty to remain neutral on matters of faith,” says Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “The new public safety building will be home to many critical government services, but the moment they walk in the door, Quincy residents who do not share the city’s favored religious beliefs will get the message that they are not welcome.”
“Mayor Koch is abusing the power of his government office to impose religious beliefs on all Quincy residents,” says Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “The core principles of church-state separation and religious freedom promised in the Massachusetts Constitution require government buildings and other public spaces to be inclusive of people of all religions and none. By installing religious statues in front of the government building dedicated to public safety, Koch and the city are violating that promise and sending a message to all who rely on city police and fire services that one faith is favored over all others.”
And then, months later, that lawsuit succeeded. Justice of the Superior Court William F. Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction blocking the statues from going up. (It wasn’t his final decision, but it hit a giant pause button on what the city is doing.)
In his 26-page ruling, Sullivan wrote that the city has already spent “at least $761,378.75 in public funds for the creation of the statues” and more will still be needed for the installation.
The city had urged the judge to dismiss the case, arguing the plaintiffs had no right to sue just because they were “offended” by the statues and that they had no legal standing. But the judge rejected both of those arguments:
Defendants respond that Plaintiffs do not have standing under the declaratory judgment statute because they “are simply offended by the planned statues, and, unwilling to confine themselves to the ordinary means for airing ideological disagreements with the government—the political process—have sought to make a lawsuit of it”… The Court is not persuaded.
…
Given the prominence of the public safety building and the displays at issue, the intended multi-faceted use of the building and promotion of the public accessibility, and Massachusetts’ traditional recognition of broader constitutional protections under its constitution than federal courts interpreting the United States Constitution, there is no basis to conclude that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims here.
…
In other words, [“proponents of abandoning offended observer standing” believe] greater harmony would exist if only minority sects would acquiesce to the majority position and accept subordinate status. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr., this notion confuses the absence of tension with the presence of justice. Massachusetts law cannot countenance such a result.
…
In this Court’s view, giving a member of the public standing to challenge the overt presentation of Catholic symbols on the front of a public building does not amount to a “modified heckler’s veto.”
So the church/state side had legal standing. Great. But what about the merits of their argument? The judge agreed that these statues would be an endorsement of religion. In fact, he used both the Lemon Test (which the Supreme Court has killed off but which Massachusetts’ law has not) and the fictional “is it tradition?” question to explain why the statues failed every kind of religious neutrality test.
As to the Lemon Test, the judge agreed the allegations suggest “the decision to erect these particular statues was ‘motivated wholly by religious considerations’” and “cannot be separated from their religious symbolism.” Furthermore, “an objective observer would view these statues… as primarily endorsing Catholicism/Christianity and conveying a distinctly religious message.”
What about tradition? The judge said he didn’t care what the Founders might have thought about this. Even if Christianity was promoted by the government hundreds of years ago, it didn’t mean we needed to keep making the same mistakes:
… this Court does not base its understanding of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights solely on what its founders envisioned at the time they signed the document. To do so would perpetuate the petty bigotries of the past.
…
… To the extent that the forebearers at times have failed to uphold the ideals espoused in our state’s Constitution, it is not a basis for this Court, informed by two centuries of human experience, to shrink from its duty to ensure that promise of Article 3 is fulfilled.
Then, more to the point, the judge said the statues sent a message to the public that certain religious groups were looked down upon:
Victims and witnesses entering such a building often must overcome emotional and psychological hurdles, and intimidation to report crimes and seek police assistance. Central to their concerns is the question of whether the police will treat their claims with the gravity warranted and treat them equally as any other individual, regardless of religious beliefs. Viewed in this context, the Complaint raises plausible claims that the statues are not merely passive or benign but serve as part of a broader message as to who may be favored.
After considering all that, the judge said the Plaintiffs were “likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.” The statues were definitely promoting religion, allowing that to move forward would mean more taxpayer dollars being wasted on the project, and the mayor was full of shit:
The Court is not persuaded by the Mayor’s self-serving assertions, particularly in light of his curious actions of commissioning the statues without public knowledge. Regardless, the Mayor’s professed secular purpose offers nothing more than semantics. To the extent a statue of Saint Michael provides inspiration or conveys a message of truth, justice, or the triumph of good over evil, it does so in his context as a Biblical figure—namely, the archangel of God. It is impossible to strip the statue of its religious meaning to contrive a secular purpose. To be sure, the statute of Saint Florian, a historical person, is somewhat more nuanced. But given the manner in which the statue portrays Saint Florian (as larger than life and with allusion to his martyrdom) and its juxtaposition with the statue of Saint Michael, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of showing that the statues do not serve a predominantly secular purpose.
… The placement of two statues seemingly befitting a house of worship, on the exterior façade of the public safety building, overshadowing public access points, indicates the primary effect is likely to convey a religious message.
Ultimately, the judge said, he had to issue an injunction now because there were only two options: If the church/state side eventually won the lawsuit, this ruling would prevent the city from wasting more money on an illegal project. But if Quincy eventually won the lawsuit, they would merely be delayed in putting up the statues.
It was the right move and the judge has gave plenty of hints as to how he would eventually rule.
But the city appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court before that decision could come down. And that court has now upheld the earlier injunction for many of the same reasons we heard earlier.
The SJC said the Plaintiffs have legal standing to bring this case, and the arguments are on their side, too:
In sum, the preliminary injunction record reflects that the statues are large and will stand alone, they are brand new rather than long standing, they are closely affiliated with a particular religion, and they thus may convey to observing members of the public implicit government support for that religion and, as a result, subordination of other religions. All of this supports the motion judge's conclusion that the plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits.
…
… As the motion judge determined, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the city has violated important constitutional rights and has spent, and plans to continue to spend, taxpayer dollars in violation of those rights that will not be recoverable. Furthermore, as the motion judge determined and as the plaintiffs' declarations in the record supported, were the statues to be installed for the duration of this litigation, the plaintiffs and other members of the public would have to confront them regularly, experiencing feelings of subordination given their own religious beliefs or nonbeliefs.
The bottom line is that the statues are not going to go up despite the city’s demands—and the lawsuit to block them permanently will continue with all signs pointing to a permanent rejection of them.
“I’m thrilled with this ruling and I’m relieved that these statues will not be installed while we pursue our case against the city,” says Claire Fitzmaurice, a resident of Quincy and a plaintiff. “As a Unitarian Universalist, I cherish the principle of religious pluralism. I believe that Quincy should be a place where we welcome people from all faiths and backgrounds. To have these imposing religious statues looming over the entrance of the public safety building would fly in the face of that pluralistic ideal — especially as our city continues to grow more diverse. I look forward to our next day in court.”
It’s a huge win for religious freedom and a huge loss for Catholic supremacy. Because these statues were never harmless pieces of public art. They were Catholic monuments, secretly commissioned by a Catholic mayor, paid for with an obscene amount of public money, and designed to tower over residents entering a government building. The message was unmistakable: Catholicism enjoys a place of honor in Quincy, and everyone who isn’t Catholic is expected to be subordinate and keep quiet about it.
That message would be offensive outside any government office, but it’s especially disturbing at a public safety headquarters. A building devoted to protecting the public should never be branded with the religion of those in political power.
These statues deserve to remain in storage. Preventing them from going up isn’t anti-Catholic. It’s just a reminder that public spaces are for everyone.
There’s an irony in all this, too. A costly facility meant to improve public safety has become better known outside of Quincy for how it will exclude certain members of the community. But thanks to some brave Plaintiffs, excellent lawyers, and wise judges, city officials won’t get to promote their religion at taxpayers’ expense.
(Portions of this article were published earlier)
I can only wonder at how stupid these people had to be to assume putting these statues up in front of a police station would be okay. Things like this do not fill me with hope for the future of our species.
Michael is the head of Angelic armies. He is a servant of God who, in the Bible, fights demons and Satan.
This is THE LAST message that police officers need.
They do not serve God, they serve the community. They are not infallible. They are supposed to serve and protect, not wage war. They solve crimes and the people they arrest are not minions of Satan.