"Aesthetic Injury" and other Fables
The Supreme Court decided that construction can continue at the White House on the new West Wing. It was a 5-4 vote in which Chief Justice John Roberts demonstrated that he is an even bigger dumbass than many of us had previously believed.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States had filed suit against Trump claiming that the construction violates the law. The Court ruled that the Trust had no standing to file the suit. The Trust's entire case was based on one of their members, an Alison Hoagland, who claims that she would be traumatized by having to view the new building about once a month when she ventured to that neighborhood.
According to the filing by the Trust, "She asserts that having to view the finished ballroom the government is constructing would cause her to suffer “injuries” to her “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests” because she finds the “scale,” “height,” and “massing” of the government’s design distasteful."
Good grief!! I can't believe that the government is causing "aesthetic injuries" just to build a ballroom at the White House. What I really can't believe is that a team of lawyers put that phrase together and filed it with the United States Supreme Court.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation wants the construction stopped because one (obviously very special) woman will be offended. I am just curious, is the distinguished Ms. Hoagland offended when circus tents and porta-jons are put on the White House grounds for large dinner events? Do they have those in "historical" models?
Here's a clip from the Supremes ruling. The complete ruling is available at 26A203 National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (08/31/2026)
For those who don't want to go there, here are the highlights of the claim.
"To establish its standing to bring this case, the Trust relies on a declaration from a single of its members, Alison K. Hoagland. Hoagland says that she lives in Washington, D. C., and expects to visit the neighborhood around the White House “about once a month.” She asserts that having to view the finished ballroom the government is constructing would cause her to suffer “injuries” to her “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests” because she finds the “scale,” “height,” and “massing” of the government’s design distasteful. On the strength of that declaration, the Trust contends, it has Article III standing to challenge the East Wing project."
"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.” 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.”
In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice wrote this, "The White House is not just any building, and—when it comes to historic preservation—Hoagland is not just any person."
Sorry John, but she really is jurat another person. I don't give a rat's ass about what Alison Hoagland thinks of the White House! There are millions of people with an interest in historic preservation. What about all of the statues that have been torn down and all of the buildings renamed? Why were opinions of people not considered by the Federal courts in those cases??
.jpg)
