The Court's decision in Flast v. Cohen is not as broad as it appears upon first reading. The rule of Frothingham v. Mellon is as viable today as it was on June 9, 1968. The Court has merely grafted on to Frothingham a constitutionally possible and needed exception. The basis was provided by the overwhelming importance which our society places on the neutrality of the Government in religious matters. The need arose because of Congress' failure to grant standing to challenge congressional appropriations which, in part, are given to non-secular institutions, and thus may violate the mandate of neutrality between church and state.
Charles B. Baumer,
Constitutional Law—Standing to Sue: What Remains of the Frothingham Rule? Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968),
48 Neb. L. Rev. 536
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol48/iss2/9