National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States · ¶33

The Court would distinguish our environmental aesthetic injury cases on the ground that the plaintiffs there alleged “more than mere offense.” Ante, at 4. But so has Hoagland. She has not simply alleged “distress at or disagreement with” the ballroom’s construction. FDA v. Alliance for Hip pocratic Medicine, 602 U. S. 367, 390, n. 3 (2024). She instead has alleged that the ballroom’s construction would damage what for her is a concrete and particularized interest in physically viewing, appreciating, and studying a historic building as it is. Having reframed Hoagland’s aesthetic injury as “mere offense” at the ballroom’s construction, the Court reasons that very little would remain of Article III’s concrete and particularized injury requirement were we to recognize standing here. While it is true that nearly every government action will offend someone somehow, see ante, at 4, not every…

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