Appeals broad view of "citizen standing" the Supreme Court stated:
Although respondents claim that the Constitution has been violated, they claim nothing else.  They fail to identify any personal injury suffered by them as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error, other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees.  That is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. Ill, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms.
Jd., at 485-486, 102 S.Ct. 765.
The Supreme Court held that Americans United, headquartered in Washington, D.C., with the named plaintiffs residing in Maryland and Virginia, could not allege an "injury or any kind, economic or otherwise, sufficient to confer standing" where the real estate transaction at issue was in Pennsylvania. 454 U.S. at 486-87, 102 S.Ct. at 766.  (emphasis in original.)
Here, Newdow has not alleged any facts showing he had direct contact with the governmental conduct he challenges.  Like the plaintiffs in Valley Forge who lived in a different state from where the real estate was located, Newdow was 3,000 miles away from the inaugural activities he watched on television.  His lack of geographical proximity to the inaugural prayer dooms his claim to standing.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that the Establishment Clause provides a
special license to roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing and to reveal their discoveries in federal court.  The federal courts were simply not constituted as ombudsmen of the general welfare.