National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States · ¶32

Hoagland’s injury suffices for standing. A historic preservationist such as Hoagland can be aesthetically injured in a concrete, particularized way by the transformation of a historic building that she frequently enjoys, just as an environmentalist can sustain a concrete, particularized aesthetic injury from the extinction of a particular animal or the transformation of a particular forest or river that he regularly enjoys. See, e.g., Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S., at 562–563; Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environ mental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 180–183 (2000). With the Court’s rejection of Hoagland’s standing today, however, it now is the case that “I want to look at a crocodile” can adequately answer the ever critical “what’s it to you?” question of Article III standing, while “I want to look at the White House” cannot—no matter how distinctive the particular…

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