Possible burial site discovered during trail construction at Decatur's Legacy Park
Construction on part of a new section of a trail at Legacy Park in Decatur is on hold after crews unearthed what appears to be a historical burial vault, prompting concerns about potential unmarked graves on the site.
According to city officials, construction crews struck the underground vault on May 6 while grading near the park's north entrance off South Columbia Drive. The site was previously the United Methodist Children's Home for 144 years, until the city acquired it in 2017.
The 77-acre property started as an orphanage after the Civil War and is considered historically significant.
'It was a brick vault about a foot deep, four feet long, two feet wide, and two feet deep,' Cara Scharer, Decatur's Assistant City Manager of Public Works told Channel 2's Eryn Rogers. She added that the vault contained glass and metal, but no human remains.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
The discovery came during Phase 3 of a larger trail construction project aimed at improving connectivity between Legacy Park, a new track and field, and nearby affordable housing developments.
In response to the discovery, the city brought in the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office to conduct a ground-penetrating radar scan of the area on May 21.
The scan was performed to determine whether any additional graves or historic artifacts lie beneath the surface.
'They confirmed it may be a suspected burial and so, encouraged us to pause construction and do more investigation,' Scharer said.
TRENDING STORIES:
Trump announces travel ban and restrictions on 19 countries set to go into effect Monday
Case of mistaken identity ends with young mother killed in alleged Atlanta gang shooting
Doorbell camera captures man dragging dog down street in Fulton County
Some local residents weren't shocked by the finding, given the property's complex past. 'If they found a vault, that would mean there's not something necessarily to hide, to me,' said DeKalb County resident Toi Dickson.
While they wait for an official report from preservation authorities, construction has resumed, just on the opposite end of the park.
'We are working diligently to identify what is there accurately and come up with a path forward,' Scharer said.
City officials expect the report to be finalized soon. If additional burial sites are confirmed, the city may have to reroute the trail.
Still, the goal remains to complete the project in the next six to nine months.
Legacy Park, which spans more than 70 acres, is being redeveloped into a community hub with trails.
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
Chicago Tribune
5 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling? Here's what to know.
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
We Saw Two Sides of Trump Last Week. Who Knows Which One We'll See This Week.
Sign up for the Surge, the newsletter that covers most important political nonsense of the week, delivered to your inbox every Saturday. Hello and welcome back to the Surge, Slate's weekly real-time effort to write a prequel to the 2024 movie Civil War. I'm Ben Mathis-Lilley, and I'll be filling in until Labor Day for Jim Newell, who has taken a temporary leave of absence after seeing that Donald Trump has installed two 88-foot flagpoles on the White House grounds. 'I'll be danged if I can't make a million-foot flagpole,' Jim said, retreating into his garage, where a great deal of clanging, banging, and typing 'how to build a flagpole' into the YouTube search bar has since been heard. God bless America! This week we have, well—frankly, we have some bad stuff. The situation is pretty no-good out there, ranging from extrajudicial-ish harassment of elected officials to the senseless murder of elected officials to Kristi Noem having a mysterious medical event. But first: A potential international catastrophe involving nuclear weapons. (I warned you it was all bad!) Just over a week ago, Israel launched an attack against Iran using missiles, aircraft, and drones. One ostensible purpose of the attack was to set back Iran's nuclear program, which Israel says could soon be capable of producing a nuclear weapon. Another consequence might be the fall of Iran's government. U.S. intelligence analysts, though, disagreed with Israel about Iran's nuclear timeline, and the State Department—which has been conducting ongoing negotiations with the Iranians regarding nuclear issues—said in a statement that the U.S. was 'not involved' in the offensive. Trump, who has now run for president twice on the premise that he is an isolationist who deplores the idea of America becoming entangled in foreign wars, reportedly told Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu that the whole thing was a bad idea. (Because of, you know, the potential to turn the entire country into a civil war nightmare zone that incubates brutal terrorism. Not that the United States would know anything about that.) Thank you, Mr. President? Not so fast, actually! Just as it seemed the American ship of state was sailing away from Netanyahu's Folly, Trump suddenly demanded Iran's 'unconditional surrender' in a social media post and began musing about having the U.S. drop a bomb on one of its nuclear facilities. He soon explained to the press, directly contradicting his top intelligence adviser, that he's decided the Iranians actually are close to building a WMD—so close that he wants to abandon the negotiation process that he was committed to until a few days ago. What's the deal? As best as anyone can figure out, Trump got so excited about Fox News' war coverage that it made him want to jump in on the whole war thing himself—and, according to the New York Times, he's now started claiming that he was pushing Netanyahu toward attacking the ayatollahs' regime all along. So, as far as whether the United States does or does not currently support Benjamin Netanyahu's effort to destroy the Iranian government … stay tuned! (This kind of uncertainty about what constitutes national policy on a given day, by the way, is not at all unprecedented in the current White House.) Last Saturday, an estimated 5 million Americans demonstrated across the country at coordinated 'No Kings' rallies. (By the way: This is why the rallies were called that.) It remains to be seen how much this broad activation of liberals, leftists, and people who simply do not like the cut of Trump's jib will translate into political power; the rallies were nonpartisan, and some Democratic officials wary of the possibility that protests could turn violent have kept their distance. That's not true for all Democrats and all expressions of opposition, though. On Tuesday, New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander attended a federal immigration court hearing with the intent of escorting its subject out of the building past Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel. (ICE agents under Trump have begun waiting outside immigration hearings to snatch individuals whose cases get dismissed by judges at the behest of federal attorneys. Lander and others characterize this as a bait-and-switch tactic that deprives individuals seeking legal status of their due process rights.) The ICE agents, several wearing masks and none bearing visible identification, responded by pushing Lander against a wall, handcuffing him, and detaining him for more than three hours on (dubious-seeming) accusations of 'assaulting law enforcement.' (He was released without charges.) It was the third time in the last month or so that an elected Democrat has been manhandled and handcuffed by federal personnel. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in United States vs. Skrmetti, one of the most high-stakes cases of its current term. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which states that Tennessee's law prohibiting trans minors from receiving 'gender-affirming' medical treatment is constitutional. The most conservative wing of the court seemed to want to do this while further opening the gates to legalized discrimination against transgender adults across the country. Roberts did not go that far—but in order to walk that line, he had to argue Tennessee's law against receiving medical care that accords with one's gender identity does not have anything to do with gender identity. Trans rights advocates were furious, comparing the ruling to Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the 'separate but equal' doctrine justifying Jim Crow; state-level legislative efforts to strip rights from transgender adults, meanwhile, will continue. As Slate legal eagle Mark Joseph Stern puts it, the Roberts decision is an attempt at compromise that will do nothing to settle the issue, instead inviting more bitter conflict. Sound familiar? Like, say, most of what has happened in American politics since roughly Obama's inauguration? On Saturday morning, a 57-year-old Minnesota man who acquaintances have described as having right-wing Christian views apparently decided, like so many other Americans in recent years, that he needed to kill some liberals. He then allegedly shot two Democratic state legislators and their spouses in their homes, killing one—state Rep. Melissa Hortman—and her husband. On Sunday, MAGA Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted on Twitter/X that the deaths were an example of 'what happens when Marxists don't get their way' (?) and shared an ostensibly humorous (?) meme referring to the shootings as 'Nightmare on Waltz [sic] Street.' (Democrat and former vice presidential candidate Tim Walz is Minnesota's governor.) Lee eventually deleted the posts after being confronted about them in Congress by Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith. But this, unfortunately, will probably not be the last time a right-wing elected official's first reaction to a deadly attack on one of his colleagues is to use it as fodder for glib, misleading online juvenilia. If it seems like this newsletter has been a bit slanted against the Republican Party, that's only because the GOP has been responsible for the bulk of recent headlines; there are plenty of snarky and deeply disillusioned things we could say about Democrats, too, if given the chance! And we do have one good chance this week in the person of Ken Martin, a former DNC vice chair who became head of the Democratic National Committee in February. (Martin, coincidentally, is also from Minnesota.) The idea behind picking Martin instead of younger, buzzier Wisconsin state party chair Ben Wikler was that he had the kind of longtime insider relationships that would allow everyone in the party to get moving forward quickly without any unnecessary friction or factionalism. Unfortunately, factional friction is pretty much all that Martin has presided over since. His tenure was sent sideways immediately by a controversy over now-former DNC member and Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg's efforts to fund primary challengers against some Democratic House incumbents; this week, news broke that two major labor leaders have resigned their DNC roles over conflicts with Martin whose nature is unclear. This week, Politico and the Times and the Post all published stories in which Martin's various critics in the party dumped on him, mostly anonymously, for being weak and ineffectual. Does any of this matter for 2026? Probably not, given that Republicans are currently pursuing a sort of super-trifecta of unpopular disaster policies. But it does not necessarily give one confidence that the Democratic Party is going to be capable of getting the American national project back on track the next time it holds power. In the midst of Lander's confrontation with ICE, the fallout from the murders in Minneapolis, and Trump getting all coy and playful about whether or not he is going to have the world's largest conventional bomb dropped on some nuclear stuff, news started circulating that the U.S. secretary of homeland security (Noem) had suddenly been rushed to a Washington hospital. What the hell, we thought. Sometimes we can't even with all of this. It turned out, according to DHS, that Noem had just experienced an 'allergic reaction' (to what, they didn't say) and is fine. Nonetheless: Sometimes we can't even with all of this!
