Juliana v United States is an especially important climate crisis case in which 21 young people, a non-profit environmental non-governmental organisation and a ‘representative of future generations’ sued numerous federal government officials on the basis of various constitutional claims and the public trust doctrine. The lawsuit sought to compel the preparation and implementation of a detailed federal plan to curb climate change. The plaintiffs won a surprising victory in a United States District Court, where the court denied a defendants’ motion to dismiss. However, they subsequently suffered a defeat when a majority of a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that they lacked standing to sue. This article examines the federal courts’ treatment of the Juliana case and analyses the broader implications of their decisions. In particular, this piece emphasises the Ninth Circuit's unfortunate misapplication of the standing to sue doctrine, along with the inherent shortcomings of that doctrine in meritorious environmental public interest litigation.

中文翻译：

---

他们举起了手：美国第九巡回上诉法院在朱莉安娜诉美国案中的不满意意见

朱莉安娜诉美国案是一个特别重要的气候危机案，在该案中，有21名年轻人，一个非营利性的环境非政府组织和一个“后代代表”以各种宪法主张和公众信任为由起诉了许多联邦政府官员。教义。该诉讼试图迫使制止和执行详细的联邦计划以遏制气候变化。原告在美国地方法院取得了令人惊讶的胜利，该法院驳回了被告开除的动议。但是，当美国第九巡回上诉法院三名法官组成的小组多数裁定他们缺乏起诉的资格时，他们随后遭受了失败。本文考察了联邦法院对朱莉安娜案件的处理方式，并分析了其判决的更广泛含义。特别是，这件作品着重强调了第九巡回法庭对诉讼原告资格的错误使用，以及该理论在立功环境公众利益诉讼中的固有缺陷。