National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States · ¶10

This Court has not found standing in circumstances like these before. To the contrary, we have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury under Article III. As we have put it, “this Court has long made clear that distress at or disagreement with the activities of others is not a basis under Article III for a plaintiff to bring a federal lawsuit.” FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U. S. 367, 390, n. 3 (2024). Instead, to secure standing a plaintiff must identify some concrete and particularized injury “other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 485 (1982); see also Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S.…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.