In a previous post, I took an op ed piece that I authored and provided a “deconstruction” of the text that explained the thought process behind the piece’s organization and argument.  In today’s post, I propose to take one class period from my Constitutional Law course and to deconstruct the class in a similar fashion.  Readers of this blog may find my thought process surprising, appalling, or some combination thereof.

The class period in question deals with the constitutional doctrine of standing in the federal courts.  Because federal courts only possess the power to hear cases described in Article III of the Constitution, standing doctrine has been developed by the Supreme Court to differentiate “cases” and “controversies” from disputes that are merely hypothetical, or that request an advisory opinion, or that are better left to family or political decision makers.  The case in the textbook that provides an entry way into a discussion of standing doctrine is Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000).

In that case, the plaintiff was a member of an environmental group who wanted to sue a polluter who had dumped mercury into a South Carolina river.  Congress had passed the Clean Water Act, which creates a cause of action in federal court for any person “adversely affected” by a violation of the statute.  The issue was whether the plaintiff in this case, who alleged that he no longer swam in the river or picnicked along its shore due to a fear of contamination, had suffered a sufficient “injury in fact” to have standing to sue.