Is psychic or emotional offense allegedly caused by observation of religious messages an injury sufficient to confer standing under Article III of the Constitution, including where the offended party deliberately seeks out the exposure in question?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner City of Ocala, in response to a local shooting, encouraged the citizenry to attend an upcoming prayer rally. Respondents learned of the event and, concerned that the rally might constitute an Establishment Clause violation, made a point to attend in person. Respondents allege that the event did indeed contain religious elements that offended them and made them feel excluded. Respondents then sued in federal court, asserting a violation of the Establishment Clause. Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit held that at least one of the respondents had “offended observer” standing to bring suit. The question presented is: Is psychic or emotional offense allegedly caused by observation of religious messages an injury sufficient to confer standing under Article III of the Constitution, including where the offended party deliberately seeks out the exposure in question? ii PARTIES The caption contains the names of all of the current parties. There were originally four plaintiffs, two of whom (Jean Porgal and Daniel Hale) have since died. The remaining two plaintiffs, Art Rojas and Lucinda Hale, remain parties and respondents here. There were originally four defendants; only one (petitioner City of Ocala) remains. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Mayor Reuben “Kent” Guinn, and plaintiffs have not challenged that ruling. The district court also ruled in favor of defendant Chief of Police Greg Graham in his official capacity, and plaintiffs did not pursue that claim further. Chief Graham was also sued in his individual capacity, but he died during the pendency of this case. Plaintiffs also sued the Ocala Police Department, but the district court ruled that the Department was not a separate entity from the city, and plaintiffs have not challenged that ruling. Accordingly, defendant City of Ocala is the sole remaining defendant on appeal and is the sole petitioner here.