this holding is succinctly explained in Allen v. Hickel, 424 F.2d 944 (D.C.Cir.1970), a District of Columbia case in which citizens challenged the display of a creche in a public park. In Allen, [government counsel put it at argument that if the plaintiffs didn’t like to look at the creche, they could avoid walking near the Ellipse while it was occupied by the creche. [The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed, however, and held that the pjlaintiffs were entitled, as members of the public, to enjoy the park land and its devotion to permissible public use; a government action cannot infringe that right or require them to give it up without access to the court to complain that the action is unconstitutional. Allen, 424 F.2d at 947 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted) (<HOLDING>); on remand sub nom. Allen v. Morton, 333
holding that the lack of shareholder standing under texas law does not implicate constitutional standing holding that no consideration existed for part of the settlement holding no defamation existed holding that standing existed holding no liability existed under the circumstances