The Supreme Judicial Court today upheld the Superior Court order enjoining the construction of statutes of two saints at a Quincy public safety building as being constitutionally prohibited by the Massachusetts Constitution.
===================================================
KAFKER, J. The mayor of the city of Quincy (city) seeks to
install two ten-foot-tall statues on the façade of the city’s
new public safety building at taxpayer expense. One statue
depicts Saint Michael, an archangel with wings, stepping on the
head and neck of a demon.3 The other depicts Saint Florian, a
larger-than-life Roman soldier towering above a burning building
and extinguishing the fire with water from a single vessel.
Saint Michael and Saint Florian are recognized as religious
saints by the Catholic Church. They are also important symbolic
figures for police officers and firefighters, respected for the
values of bravery and honor they represent.
The plaintiffs, fifteen residents and taxpayers of the
city, sued the city and the mayor in his official capacity to
prevent the installation of the statues, arguing that the
expenditure of public funds on, and the display of, the statues
violate art. 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as
amended by art. 11 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts
Constitution, which provides: “all religious sects and
denominations . . . 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.” A Superior Court
judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary
injunction and denied the city’s motion to dismiss. The city
appealed, arguing the plaintiffs lack standing and the statues
are permissible under art. 3.
We conclude that the plaintiffs have standing as taxpayers
under G. L. c. 40, § 53. We further conclude that the
constitutionality of the statues must be evaluated according to
the framework we set out in Colo v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen.,
378 Mass. 550 (1979), a decision that explored and applied the
evolving text, constitutional history, and purposes of art. 3.
That decision further considered, as helpful guidance,
additional factors recognized in Federal and State case law,
particularly the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lemon
v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), which reflected the Supreme
Court’s establishment clause analysis at the time, to identify
improper intermingling of State and religion. Applying the
comprehensive reasoning of Colo, we conclude that the motion
judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the preliminary
injunction. We therefore affirm.4
Medfield02052's Blog 