The age of candidacy was established some 70 years ago. Since then, there has been a growing belief in Japan and around the world that the reflection of diverse perspectives contributes to a robust democracy. In line with this trend, Japan has lowered the voting age and the age of majority to 18 years.

The right to stand for election is a fundamental human right protected by the principle of popular sovereignty, which is a basic tenet of the Constitution, and should not be unfairly taken away without a reasonable justification. Moreover, having a variety of candidates to choose from benefits voters by expanding the choices they can make.
Through this litigation, we seek to ask the important question: Is the age restriction in the Public Offices Election Act reasonably justified?

The police practice of racial profiling, where individuals are targeted for criminal investigation based on factors such as race, skin color, or ethnic origin, rather than objective evidence or individual behavior, has become a persistent issue in Japan. In recent years, there have been continuous complaints from people of foreign origin who have been subjected to repeated police questioning despite the absence of any reasonable suspicion. Racial profiling deeply undermines human dignity, stigmatizing individuals and communities who are subjected to it by suggesting that they don’t belong in Japan. We demand the abolition of the systemic practice of racially discriminatory police questioning, a practice that we deem inappropriate within our diverse society.

For women who feel discomfort over their reproductive capacity or those who have made a definite choice not to have children, sterilization represents an indispensable means to live life on their own terms. In spite of this reality, the Maternal Health Act (aka the “Mother’s Body Protection Law”) prohibits sterilization for non-medical purposes and requires, inter alia, already having several children, as well as spousal (or partner) authorization. Furthermore, sterilization without fulfilling these requirements is punishable by imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to 500,000 yen. We claim that these provisions infringe on the right to reproductive self-determination and violate the Constitution, and seek revision of the current legislative framework.

Under Japanese law, married couples must choose the same surname upon marriage, resulting in women predominantly adopting their husbands’ surname. Consequently, those wishing to keep their original surnames face a difficult choice: either sacrifice their own surname or forego legal marriage. As names are inextricably connected to one’s individuality and identity, both at personal and collective levels, each partner should have the right to choose their surname and to retain the use of their original surname upon marriage. LEDGE supports the Legal Counsel Team of the third lawsuit for a selective separate surnames system for married couples.

This lawsuit, brought by three plaintiffs, seeks damages from the State, claiming that certain orders given by presiding judges were unlawful. A judge in the Fukuoka same-sex marriage case required one plaintiff to hide the rainbow design on their socks, while another judge, in the Hakamada retrial, instructed a plaintiff to cover the word “HAKAMADA” on their hoodie. Such arbitrary enforcement of courtroom authority risks closing off the courtrooms and eroding public trust in the judiciary. This lawsuit aims to make the courts more open and accessible.