The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision allowing President Donald Trump to continue work on a $400 million White House ballroom is already shaping legal challenges to his other construction projects. The unsigned Monday ruling barred a historic preservationist from suing on aesthetic grounds, holding that offense, disagreement or distaste does not constitute a concrete and particularized injury. The decision came through the emergency docket, limiting its formal precedential effect, but legal experts say it indicates that five conservative justices may seek to narrow or reject aesthetic standing, the ability to sue over harm to one’s enjoyment of places or species. The Justice Department has cited the ruling in cases involving a proposed 250-foot arch on the Potomac River, a Washington golf-course renovation, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and a Gilded Age government building near the White House. A federal court on Friday ordered new briefing in the Reflecting Pool case. Preservation groups and legal experts say the ruling raises the burden for plaintiffs but does not eliminate other avenues for challenging alleged violations of federal rules.