Latest Update — As of August 29, 2026: The most recent confirmed development in this case dates to March 10, 2026, when the Sons of Confederate Veterans filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court of DeKalb County. The appeal challenges a lower court order that had granted the State’s motion to dismiss the group’s lawsuit over the relocation of the Memorial Flag Terrace and the planned new exhibits at Stone Mountain Park. The State’s dismissal motion rested on sovereign immunity and standing arguments; the Sons of Confederate Veterans contend a 2022 Georgia Supreme Court ruling and a 2020 voter-approved constitutional amendment removing sovereign immunity as a defense support their right to sue. No ruling on the appeal has been reported since it was filed.
Last updated: August 2026
The Stone Mountain Park exhibit lawsuit centers on legal battles over Confederate memorial displays at Georgia’s most visited attraction. Multiple parties have filed claims challenging how the Stone Mountain Memorial Association handles, presents, and potentially modifies the park’s controversial exhibits.
This legal fight matters because it could reshape how Georgia’s largest state park tells the story of the Confederacy. The iconic granite carving attracts over 4 million visitors yearly. Yet the exhibits surrounding it have sparked fierce debate.
You will learn who filed these lawsuits, what they claim, where the cases stand in 2026, and how the outcome could affect your next visit. One key fact: Georgia law specifically protects Confederate monuments, making this case a constitutional test like few others.
Stone Mountain Park Exhibit Lawsuit
The Stone Mountain Park exhibit lawsuit involves legal action over how the park displays and interprets Confederate history. At its core, opposing groups fight over whether current exhibits properly honor heritage, whitewash history, or need dramatic changes.
Stone Mountain Park features the largest bas-relief sculpture in the world. The carving depicts Confederate leaders Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson on horseback. Surrounding exhibits have changed over the decades, but the carving itself remains protected under Georgia law.
| Key Case Details | Information |
|---|---|
| Primary Defendant | Stone Mountain Memorial Association |
| Location | DeKalb County, Georgia |
| Subject Matter | Confederate exhibit displays and modifications |
| Legal Protections | Georgia Code Section 50-3-1 |
| Carving Size | 3 acres, larger than Mount Rushmore |
The lawsuit gained momentum after the Memorial Association proposed new “contextual” exhibits. These exhibits would provide additional historical perspective on slavery and the Civil War. Critics argue this violates state monument protection laws.
Supporters say context is necessary and legally permitted. The debate has drawn national attention to how states handle Confederate symbols on public land.
Key Takeaway: The Stone Mountain Park exhibit lawsuit tests whether Georgia’s monument protection laws prevent adding historical context to Confederate displays.
What Is the Stone Mountain Park Lawsuit About
The Stone Mountain Park lawsuit is about whether adding new educational exhibits violates Georgia’s Confederate monument protection statute. Plaintiffs claim the Memorial Association overstepped its legal authority by planning changes to how Confederate history is presented.
Georgia law prohibits the “removal, relocation, concealment, obscuring, or altering” of Confederate monuments. The legal question: does adding context through new exhibits count as “obscuring” the original message?
Heritage groups argue that new exhibits placing the Confederacy in a negative light effectively obscure the memorial’s intended purpose. Civil rights advocates counter that education is not alteration.
The lawsuit also touches on free speech issues. Who gets to control the narrative at a publicly funded park? Can the state mandate one historical interpretation?
Several specific exhibits triggered the legal action:
- A proposed timeline showing the connection between the carving’s creation and the KKK’s 1915 rebirth at Stone Mountain
- Educational displays about slavery’s role in the Civil War
- Interpretive signs adding context to the “Lost Cause” narrative promoted in original exhibits
The outcome could set precedent for how all Georgia Confederate monuments handle historical interpretation going forward.
Stone Mountain Lawsuit 2026
The Stone Mountain lawsuit in 2026 has entered active litigation after preliminary motions concluded. Courts are now examining the substantive claims about monument protection and First Amendment rights.
| 2026 Case Timeline | Status |
|---|---|
| January 2026 | Motion hearings completed |
| Spring 2026 | Discovery phase ongoing |
| Summer 2026 | Expected depositions |
| Fall 2026 | Potential summary judgment motions |
| Late 2026 or Early 2027 | Trial date possible |
The case has been assigned to the DeKalb County Superior Court. Both sides have retained prominent attorneys with experience in constitutional and monument law.
Discovery requests have been extensive. Plaintiffs seek internal communications about exhibit planning. The Memorial Association has resisted some requests citing deliberative process privilege.
Expert witnesses on both sides are preparing reports. Historians will testify about the carving’s original purpose and the role of the United Daughters of the Confederacy in its creation. Constitutional scholars will address government speech doctrine.
The 2026 developments suggest this case will not resolve quickly. Both sides appear prepared for a lengthy legal battle potentially reaching Georgia appellate courts.
Key Takeaway: The Stone Mountain lawsuit in 2026 is in active litigation with a trial potentially scheduled for late 2026 or early 2027.
Who Is Suing Stone Mountain Park
Multiple parties have filed legal actions related to Stone Mountain Park. The primary plaintiffs include heritage organizations seeking to block exhibit changes and civil rights groups with their own claims.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans filed the most prominent lawsuit. This organization claims the Memorial Association violated Georgia monument protection law. They argue proposed exhibits would “obscure” the Confederate memorial’s original commemorative purpose.
| Plaintiffs | Their Claims |
|---|---|
| Sons of Confederate Veterans | Monument protection law violations |
| Georgia Division United Daughters of Confederacy | Breach of original charter intent |
| Individual heritage advocates | Taxpayer standing claims |
| Civil rights organizations (separate case) | Equal protection challenges |
The Sons of Confederate Veterans has a long history with Stone Mountain. The organization participated in the park’s creation and claims ongoing interest in preserving its Confederate heritage purpose.
Separately, civil rights groups have filed their own legal challenges. These plaintiffs argue the state’s monument protection law itself violates equal protection by mandating one historical viewpoint.
This creates an unusual situation. Opposing groups both have active lawsuits, though with different goals. Heritage groups want to stop changes. Civil rights groups want to enable or require them.
Stone Mountain Memorial Association Sued
The Stone Mountain Memorial Association faces legal action as the entity responsible for park operations. This state authority manages exhibits, decides on changes, and implements educational programming.
The Memorial Association was created by the Georgia legislature specifically to oversee Stone Mountain Park. The state appointed its board members. This governmental connection matters for the legal arguments.
Because the Association is a state entity, its exhibit decisions constitute “government speech.” The Supreme Court has ruled that governments can choose their own messages on monuments. But plaintiffs argue Georgia law removes that discretion for Confederate memorials.
| Memorial Association Facts | Details |
|---|---|
| Created | 1958 by Georgia General Assembly |
| Governance | State-appointed board |
| Annual Visitors | Over 4 million |
| Park Size | 3,200 acres |
| Primary Revenue | Admission, attractions, events |
The Association’s defense centers on its authority to provide educational context. Officials argue that adding new exhibits does not alter the carving itself. The granite memorial remains exactly as carved.
They also point to their legislative mandate to operate the park for all Georgians. This includes educational functions that may require presenting multiple historical perspectives.
The legal battle puts the Association in a difficult position. They face criticism from heritage groups for any changes and from civil rights advocates for not changing enough.
Key Takeaway: The Stone Mountain Memorial Association, as a state entity, faces lawsuits from opposing sides over its exhibit decisions.
Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Lawsuit
The Stone Mountain Confederate memorial lawsuit specifically addresses the 3-acre granite carving and surrounding commemorative displays. This is the largest Confederate monument in existence and the centerpiece of the legal dispute.
The carving was begun in 1916, paused, and finally completed in 1972. Its creation history intertwines with the Ku Klux Klan, which held its second founding ceremony at Stone Mountain in 1915. This history fuels current debates.
Georgia Code Section 50-3-1 directly protects this carving. The statute prevents removal, relocation, concealment, or alteration. No exceptions exist for educational context.
| Carving Details | Information |
|---|---|
| Dimensions | 90 feet tall, 190 feet wide |
| Figures Depicted | Lee, Davis, Jackson |
| Began | 1916 |
| Completed | 1972 |
| Legal Protection | Georgia Code 50-3-1 |
The legal argument hinges on interpretation. Does building new exhibits near the carving “obscure” it? Heritage plaintiffs say yes if those exhibits undermine the memorial’s original purpose of Confederate honor.
Defenders argue the carving itself remains untouched. New exhibits occupy separate spaces. Visitors can still view the original memorial exactly as designed.
Courts will need to decide how broadly to interpret “obscure.” A narrow reading protects only physical changes. A broad reading could prevent any exhibit that presents alternative historical views.
Stone Mountain Civil Rights Lawsuit
The Stone Mountain civil rights lawsuit approaches the controversy from the opposite direction. Civil rights organizations argue that state-mandated Confederate glorification violates constitutional equal protection.
These plaintiffs contend that Georgia law forces the state to promote a white supremacist historical narrative. The carving and original exhibits celebrate figures who fought to preserve slavery. Mandating their permanent honor harms Black Georgians, they argue.
The legal theory relies on equal protection analysis. When the state speaks through monuments, that speech must not discriminate. Plaintiffs claim monument protection laws effectively require discriminatory government speech.
| Civil Rights Claims | Legal Basis |
|---|---|
| Equal Protection | 14th Amendment |
| State Action | Monument mandate as government speech |
| Harm Alleged | Psychological harm, dignitary injury |
| Remedy Sought | Invalidate protection statute |
This lawsuit faces significant legal hurdles. Courts have generally been reluctant to find equal protection violations in historical monument displays. The government speech doctrine gives states wide latitude in choosing their commemorative messages.
However, attorneys argue this case differs because the state actively mandates a specific historical viewpoint. Most monument cases involve challenges to local discretion. Here, the state removed discretion and required Confederate preservation.
If successful, this lawsuit could enable the Memorial Association to make changes currently blocked by state law.
Key Takeaway: Civil rights groups have filed separate lawsuits arguing Georgia’s monument protection law itself violates equal protection.
Stone Mountain First Amendment Case
The Stone Mountain First Amendment case raises complex questions about government speech, compelled speech, and viewpoint discrimination. Both sides invoke free speech principles, though in different ways.
Heritage plaintiffs argue the state established Stone Mountain to convey a specific message. The First Amendment protects that established governmental speech from forced alteration. New exhibits that contradict the original message constitute compelled speech.
| First Amendment Issues | Arguments |
|---|---|
| Government Speech | State can choose monument messages |
| Compelled Speech | Can’t force state to contradict itself |
| Viewpoint Discrimination | Must protection laws mandate one view? |
| Public Forum | Are park grounds open for debate? |
Civil rights plaintiffs flip this argument. They contend monument protection laws constitute viewpoint discrimination. The state has chosen one historical interpretation and banned alternatives.
The Supreme Court’s Walker v. Texas Division case established that government speech is not subject to First Amendment forum analysis. But that case involved license plates, not educational exhibits at public parks.
Courts must also consider whether different park areas constitute different forums. The carving itself may be pure government speech. But are educational buildings nearby open forums?
These First Amendment questions make the case significant beyond Georgia. The ruling could affect how all states handle competing viewpoints at public memorials.
Stone Mountain Park Court Case
The Stone Mountain Park court case is proceeding through the DeKalb County Superior Court system. This state court has jurisdiction over claims involving Georgia statutes and state agency actions.
The case was assigned to a judge experienced in constitutional matters. Early rulings have allowed both sides to proceed with their claims. No dispositive motions have succeeded yet.
| Court Case Status | Current Information |
|---|---|
| Court | DeKalb County Superior Court |
| Case Type | Civil, constitutional claims |
| Current Phase | Discovery |
| Key Pending Motions | Expert qualification, privilege disputes |
| Estimated Trial | Late 2026 or early 2027 |
Procedural battles have consumed much of 2026. The Memorial Association sought to dismiss on standing grounds. The court rejected this motion, finding plaintiffs have sufficient interest in the case.
Discovery disputes continue. Plaintiffs want internal emails discussing exhibit changes. The Association claims these are protected deliberative materials. The judge has ordered in camera review.
Multiple intervention motions have been filed. Civil rights groups want to join the heritage lawsuit as defendants. Heritage groups want to intervene in the civil rights case. These motions remain pending.
The complexity of multiple parties and constitutional questions suggests appeals are inevitable regardless of the trial outcome.
Key Takeaway: The court case is in discovery phase in DeKalb County Superior Court with trial potentially in late 2026 or early 2027.
Stone Mountain Park Lawsuit Update
The Stone Mountain Park lawsuit update for 2026 shows significant activity on multiple fronts. Both the heritage lawsuit and civil rights lawsuit have progressed through preliminary stages.
In January 2026, the court denied motions to dismiss in the primary case. This ruling confirmed that plaintiffs have legal standing and stated claims worthy of trial.
February brought a key discovery ruling. The judge ordered the Memorial Association to produce documents related to exhibit planning meetings. Some communications remain protected, but thousands of pages have been released.
| 2026 Updates | Key Developments |
|---|---|
| January | Dismissal motions denied |
| February | Document production ordered |
| March | Expert witnesses designated |
| April | Deposition schedule set |
| May | Intervention motions argued |
March saw both sides designate expert witnesses. Heritage groups named historians specializing in Confederate memory. Civil rights groups designated experts in African American history and monument studies.
April established a deposition schedule. Memorial Association board members will be deposed. So will plaintiffs’ organizational representatives.
May hearings addressed intervention motions. Multiple groups want formal party status. The court has been cautious about expanding an already complex case.
The Memorial Association has paused controversial exhibit plans pending litigation. Current displays remain unchanged while the case proceeds.
Stone Mountain Exhibit Controversy
The Stone Mountain exhibit controversy predates the current lawsuit by years. Debates over how to present Confederate history at the park have simmered since the civil rights era intensified discussions about Confederate symbols.
The controversy accelerated after the 2015 Charleston church shooting. National attention to Confederate symbols prompted Georgia officials to examine Stone Mountain’s exhibits.
In 2017, the Memorial Association proposed a “Freedom Bell” and expanded African American history exhibits. These plans drew immediate opposition from heritage groups.
| Controversy Timeline | Events |
|---|---|
| 2015 | Charleston shooting prompts symbol debates |
| 2017 | Freedom Bell and new exhibits proposed |
| 2018 | Heritage groups organize opposition |
| 2020 | George Floyd protests intensify calls for change |
| 2021 | Georgia strengthens monument protection law |
| 2023 | Memorial Association announces context exhibits |
| 2024 | Lawsuits filed |
The 2020 racial justice protests brought new urgency. Calls to remove the carving itself emerged. Georgia legislators responded by strengthening protection laws rather than enabling changes.
When the Memorial Association announced “contextual” exhibits in 2023, both sides mobilized. Heritage groups saw an attempt to undermine the memorial. Civil rights advocates saw insufficient change.
The current lawsuits represent the controversy reaching the courts after political solutions failed.
Key Takeaway: The exhibit controversy has grown over decades, with the current lawsuit emerging after legislative and political attempts at resolution failed.
Stone Mountain Carving Lawsuit
The Stone Mountain carving lawsuit specifically concerns the massive bas-relief sculpture rather than surrounding exhibits. Some plaintiffs want to ensure the carving remains exactly as is. Others want permission to modify or remove it.
The carving is carved into the north face of Stone Mountain. It depicts Lee, Davis, and Jackson in heroic poses on horseback. The figures are larger than a football field when measured together.
| Carving Specifications | Details |
|---|---|
| Total Surface | 3 acres |
| Height | 90 feet |
| Width | 190 feet |
| Depth of Carving | Up to 42 feet |
| Completion Cost | $2.5 million (1972 dollars) |
Georgia law explicitly protects this specific carving. The statute references Stone Mountain by name. Any physical alteration would require legislative action, not just Memorial Association decision.
Some civil rights advocates have called for sandblasting the carving. Removing it entirely would cost an estimated $300 million and potentially destabilize the mountain face.
Current lawsuits do not seek carving removal. Even civil rights plaintiffs focus on exhibits and legal frameworks rather than demanding physical alteration.
Heritage plaintiffs argue exhibit changes effectively “alter” the carving by changing its meaning. This interpretive argument extends protection beyond physical modification.
Stone Mountain Exhibit Changes Legal
Stone Mountain exhibit changes are legal under certain interpretations, but the current lawsuit disputes exactly where the line falls. The Memorial Association claims authority to add educational content. Plaintiffs claim this violates state law.
The core legal question: what does “obscure” mean in the monument protection statute?
A narrow interpretation says obscure means physically blocking the view. Under this reading, new exhibits in separate buildings remain legal.
A broad interpretation says obscure includes undermining the memorial’s message. Under this reading, exhibits critical of the Confederacy would violate the law.
| Legal Interpretations | Implications |
|---|---|
| Narrow (physical only) | Most exhibit changes permitted |
| Moderate (visual impact) | Some restrictions on placement |
| Broad (message impact) | New context exhibits prohibited |
The Memorial Association argues legislative intent supports their position. The monument law aimed to prevent physical removal, not to freeze all interpretation forever.
Plaintiffs counter that the law’s purpose was preserving Confederate honor. Any exhibit undermining that honor contradicts legislative purpose.
Courts will examine statutory language, legislative history, and prior interpretations. No Georgia court has previously ruled on this specific question.
Key Takeaway: The legality of exhibit changes depends on how courts interpret “obscure” in Georgia’s monument protection statute.
Georgia Confederate Monument Lawsuit
The Georgia Confederate monument lawsuit at Stone Mountain is part of broader litigation across the state. Multiple Georgia counties and cities face similar legal battles over Confederate symbols.
Stone Mountain is the largest and most prominent case. But similar legal questions arise throughout Georgia’s approximately 200 Confederate monuments on public land.
| Georgia Monument Cases | Status |
|---|---|
| Stone Mountain Park | Active litigation |
| Various county monuments | Multiple pending cases |
| City of Atlanta | Previous settlements |
| State Capitol grounds | No active litigation |
Georgia’s monument protection law applies statewide. Any ruling in the Stone Mountain case will affect how other communities can handle their monuments.
Some Georgia localities have removed monuments despite the law, accepting potential legal consequences. Others await the Stone Mountain ruling before acting.
The Georgia Attorney General’s office has intervened in some cases to enforce monument protection. The office’s position affects how aggressively the law is enforced.
Stone Mountain’s outcome could either strengthen monument protection throughout Georgia or establish exceptions that other localities could use.
Will Stone Mountain Park Close Due to Lawsuit
Stone Mountain Park will not close due to the lawsuit. The park continues normal operations throughout litigation. Only exhibits under legal dispute have been paused.
This concern has circulated among visitors, but park officials have repeatedly confirmed operations continue. The lawsuit affects exhibit planning, not daily park functions.
| Park Operations | Status During Lawsuit |
|---|---|
| General Admission | Open normally |
| Carving Viewing | Available |
| Attractions | Operating |
| Special Events | Continuing |
| Disputed Exhibits | Paused pending ruling |
The park generates significant revenue for Georgia. Annual attendance exceeds 4 million visitors. Closing would create substantial financial losses the state has no interest in accepting.
Even a worst-case ruling for either side would not mandate closure. The most extreme outcomes involve exhibit changes or exhibit freezes, not operational shutdown.
Visitors can plan trips to Stone Mountain Park in 2026 with confidence the park will be open. The carving itself remains viewable. Most attractions operate normally.
Only the controversial new exhibits have been delayed. Visitors will not see the proposed contextual displays until after litigation concludes.
Key Takeaway: Stone Mountain Park remains open normally throughout the lawsuit, with only disputed new exhibits paused.
Stone Mountain Lawsuit Settlement
A Stone Mountain lawsuit settlement remains possible but appears unlikely given the ideological stakes for both sides. Neither heritage groups nor civil rights advocates have shown willingness to compromise.
Settlement discussions reportedly occurred in early litigation phases. Both sides explored whether agreed-upon exhibit approaches could resolve claims. These discussions did not produce agreement.
| Settlement Factors | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Likelihood | Low |
| Heritage Group Position | No changes to exhibits |
| Civil Rights Position | Substantive context required |
| Memorial Association | Prefers judicial clarity |
| Political Pressure | Both sides face constituent expectations |
The parties’ positions seem irreconcilable. Heritage groups oppose any exhibit suggesting the Confederacy fought for slavery. Civil rights groups oppose any exhibit omitting that history.
The Memorial Association might prefer a court ruling. A judicial decision provides political cover for whatever changes result. Settlement would require the Association to choose sides.
If settlement occurs, it would likely involve detailed exhibit language negotiated between historians. Both sides would need to accept compromise wording neither fully endorses.
Financial terms are not the primary issue. Unlike typical lawsuits, this case involves ideology more than money. Any settlement must address what stories get told.
Stone Mountain Park Future Exhibits
Stone Mountain Park future exhibits depend entirely on the lawsuit outcome. Three scenarios exist, each producing dramatically different visitor experiences.
Scenario One: Heritage plaintiffs prevail. Existing exhibits remain. No contextual additions permitted. The park continues presenting Confederate history as originally designed.
Scenario Two: Civil rights plaintiffs prevail. The Memorial Association gains authority to add extensive context. New exhibits could address slavery, the Klan connection, and Lost Cause mythology.
Scenario Three: Mixed ruling. Courts establish boundaries allowing some context but prohibiting exhibits deemed to “obscure” the memorial. The Memorial Association would navigate narrow parameters.
| Potential Future Exhibits | Scenario |
|---|---|
| Slavery history display | Scenario 2 or 3 |
| Expanded Confederate honor exhibits | Scenario 1 |
| KKK history at Stone Mountain | Scenario 2 |
| No changes | Scenario 1 |
| Compromise context | Scenario 3 |
The Memorial Association has not publicly disclosed all planned exhibits. Documents released in discovery suggest extensive proposals that remain confidential under protective order.
Whatever the outcome, implementation will take years. New exhibits require design, construction, and public input. Do not expect immediate changes even after a ruling.
How Does Stone Mountain Lawsuit Affect Visitors
The Stone Mountain lawsuit affects visitors primarily through delayed exhibit changes and potential future experience modifications. Current park visits remain largely unchanged.
| Visitor Impact | Current Status |
|---|---|
| Park Access | Unchanged |
| Carving Viewing | Unchanged |
| SkyRide | Operating |
| Laser Show | Continuing |
| Exhibits | Current displays only |
| New Context Exhibits | Postponed |
Visitors in 2026 will see Stone Mountain Park much as it has appeared for decades. The carving remains. Current exhibits remain. Major attractions operate normally.
The lawsuit’s impact is what visitors will not see. Proposed new exhibits exploring slavery, the carving’s KKK connections, and African American history at Stone Mountain remain on hold.
Future visits could differ significantly depending on the ruling. A civil rights victory could bring major new interpretive experiences. A heritage victory would preserve the status quo indefinitely.
Admission prices remain unchanged. The lawsuit does not affect park finances in ways impacting visitor costs. Georgia taxpayer funds cover legal expenses.
Visitors interested in the controversy can view the existing exhibits and form their own opinions. The carving and its surroundings remain accessible regardless of ongoing litigation.
Key Takeaway: Current visitors see Stone Mountain as it has been, with new contextual exhibits delayed until after the lawsuit resolves.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Stone Mountain Park exhibit lawsuit about in 2026?
The lawsuit addresses whether the Memorial Association can add historical context exhibits to Stone Mountain Park.
Heritage groups claim new exhibits would violate Georgia’s monument protection law by “obscuring” the Confederate memorial.
Courts are determining how to interpret the protection statute in 2026.
Who filed the lawsuit against Stone Mountain Memorial Association?
The Sons of Confederate Veterans filed the primary lawsuit challenging proposed exhibit changes.
Civil rights organizations filed separate lawsuits from the opposite perspective, challenging the monument protection law itself.
Multiple parties now have active claims in Georgia courts.
Will Stone Mountain Park close because of this lawsuit?
No, Stone Mountain Park remains open throughout the litigation.
All major attractions, including the carving and laser show, continue operating normally.
Only proposed new exhibits have been postponed pending the court’s decision.
Can visitors still see the Confederate carving during the lawsuit?
Yes, the carving remains fully visible and accessible to all park visitors.
The lawsuit concerns new exhibits, not the carving itself.
Visitors can view the memorial exactly as they always have.
When will the Stone Mountain lawsuit be resolved?
The case could go to trial in late 2026 or early 2027.
Appeals are likely regardless of the trial outcome, potentially extending final resolution into 2028.
The Memorial Association has paused controversial exhibits until courts rule.
Closing
The Stone Mountain Park exhibit lawsuit will determine how Georgia’s most famous Confederate memorial tells its story. The ruling could reshape monument law nationwide.
Watch for trial developments in late 2026. If you plan to visit Stone Mountain, the park operates normally with current exhibits in place.
Stay informed as this significant legal battle unfolds. The outcome affects how America remembers and presents its most difficult history.
