*Translated by google translate

Introduction

On December 25, 2025, the Governor of Mie Prefecture announced at a press conference that he would consider reinstating the nationality requirement for hiring prefectural employees, citing measures to prevent information leaks within the prefectural government. This announcement is a serious issue that threatens the dignity of foreign residents who have lived together with the local community in Mie Prefecture.

Furthermore, the prefecture conducted a survey excluding foreign residents from the respondents, asking whether it was appropriate to continue employing foreign nationals, and spent public funds on conducting the survey. Various organizations and individuals have raised their voices in protest, but the consideration of reinstating the nationality requirement has not yet been withdrawn.

To create and protect a society where everyone, regardless of nationality, can live in peace without exclusion, we filed a residents' lawsuit against the Governor of Mie Prefecture at the Tsu District Court on June 11, 2026.

Background

In fiscal year 1999, Mie Prefecture abolished the nationality requirement for hiring, with the exception of certain job categories, with the aim of promoting the social participation of foreigners.

However, at a press conference on December 25, 2025, the Governor of Mie Prefecture announced that he would consider reinstating the nationality requirement, citing the need for risk management to prevent the leakage of sensitive information such as infrastructure strength and the development of new agricultural varieties, as well as national information that may be leaked abroad through local governments. He cited the existence of laws in various countries that obligate their citizens, both domestically and internationally, to cooperate in intelligence activities as the background to this decision.

Furthermore, in order to proceed with the review, the prefecture designed and implemented a section in its "Mie Prefecture Residents' Survey of 10,000 People," which has been conducted for approximately 20 years, to ask residents for their opinions on the reinstatement of the nationality requirement.

▲ Question 16 from the "4th Mie Prefecture 10,000-Person Survey" asking whether or not to continue employing foreign national staff.

Furthermore, by using the "voter register" to select the respondents for the survey, "foreign residents" who are considered "prefectural residents" under the Local Autonomy Act were excluded from the survey.

Regarding issues concerning the rights of foreign residents, bar associations and human rights organizations have strongly protested against the fact that opinions were solicited without the parties involved, and that the content of the questions linked foreign nationals to the risk of information leakage. They argued that this constitutes "unjust exclusion and discrimination based on nationality" and that "confidentiality obligations are equally imposed regardless of whether one is Japanese or not," and issued numerous statements demanding their withdrawal. (Examples: Statement by the Mie Prefectural Bar Association , statement by the Chairman of the Chubu Federation of Bar Associations, statement by the President of the Aichi Prefectural Bar Association , statement by the President of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations )

While the prefectural government's summer civil service examination in 2026 will continue to allow foreign nationals to take the exam, the Governor of Mie Prefecture is still considering the possibility of reinstating the nationality requirement.

What they are claiming in court

This case is being contested as a residents' lawsuit.

On April 28, 2026, Mie Prefecture spent 7,426,100 yen as outsourcing fees for the "Mie Prefecture Residents 10,000 Survey" (hereinafter referred to as "the Survey"). The plaintiffs argue that the survey, which excluded foreign residents from the respondents and contained discriminatory content, and the expenditure of public funds for it, were illegal.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs are demanding that the defendant, the Governor of Mie Prefecture, return an amount equivalent to the commissioned fee for the survey work to Mr. Katsuyuki Ichimi personally.

The main legal points raised by the plaintiff are the following four:

1. Foreign residents were excluded from the survey respondents.

This survey was conducted by selecting participants based on the "voter registration list," and therefore, foreign residents were excluded from the responses.

This violates (1) Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, and (2) Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the Local Autonomy Act, which guarantees the right of residents to receive services equally from local governments.

Furthermore, ③ it also constitutes "unjust discrimination," which is prohibited by Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the "Ordinance for Eliminating Discrimination and Creating a Mie Prefecture Where Human Rights Are Respected," and is therefore illegal.

2. The content of Question 16 promotes discrimination and prejudice.

Question 16 explains the possibility of being required to cooperate with intelligence activities under foreign laws and then asks whether the company should continue to employ foreign nationals.

(1) Contents of Question 16

Regarding question 16 of this questionnaire, which concerns the "employment of foreign nationals as prefectural employees," the prefecture provided the following "information":

"In some countries around the world, there are laws that obligate their citizens, both domestically and internationally, to cooperate with their intelligence activities. This raises concerns that even in prefectural government operations that do not involve official authority, there may be cases where the confidentiality obligations of public officials are violated when handling important information such as personal data."

◆"On the other hand, we are currently facing difficulties in securing civil servants due to a shortage of personnel."

After presenting these two points, the question was posed: "Should we continue to employ foreign nationals if the work does not involve official authority?" Regarding the explanations concerning foreign laws and concerns about information leaks, the former (marked with ○) is 128 characters long, while the latter (marked with ◆) only contains 36 characters about the difficulty of securing personnel for public service.

Question 16 undeniably treats all foreign nationals uniformly as "potential spies" and "potential criminals" who could leak information without complying with Japanese law.

Furthermore, since the publication of this survey, discriminatory posts on the internet, such as those calling foreign residents in Japan spies, have increased many times over, and discriminatory sentiments continue to be fueled.

(2) Illegality

Question 16 is illegal because the content itself falls under either (i) "unjust discriminatory speech or actions" as defined in Article 2 of the Hate Speech Elimination Act, or (ii) "racial discrimination" which is prohibited under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

*In 2004, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination adopted General Recommendation 30 on Discrimination Against Non-Citizens, stating that "human rights should, in principle, be enjoyed by all" and that "States Parties have an obligation to ensure, to the extent recognized under international law, equality between citizens and non-citizens in the enjoyment of these rights." (See: https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/opinion/2004/03/post-4.html )

3. Infringing upon the right of foreign nationals to hold public office.

Question 16 was inserted for the purpose of considering a review of the nationality requirements for hiring prefectural employees, and it infringes upon the right of foreign nationals to hold public office, which is guaranteed by Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Article 22 of the Constitution, and Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and is therefore unconstitutional and illegal.

4. The Governor of Mie Prefecture exceeded and abused his discretionary powers.

Question 16 was not included in the initial draft questionnaire or the matters to be discussed with experts, and was added just before publication by the Governor of Mie Prefecture acting unilaterally. Furthermore, despite being a matter concerning the right of foreign nationals to hold public office, it was not consulted with an advisory body, and the opinions of the foreign residents who are directly involved were not reflected. These factors underscore the Governor of Mie Prefecture's abuse and exceeding of discretionary power.

Furthermore, concerns about information leaks by foreign national employees can be addressed through criminal penalties and disciplinary actions for violations of confidentiality obligations under the Penal Code and the Local Public Service Act. Despite the fact that there have been no cases of foreign national employees leaking confidential information in Mie Prefecture, conducting a survey that promotes discriminatory attitudes towards foreign nationals constitutes a violation of the principle of proportionality*, and from this point of view, an abuse and exceeding of discretionary power can be recognized.

Furthermore, this lawsuit is being filed as a residents' lawsuit. Mie Prefecture spent a staggering 7,426,100 yen of public funds on outsourcing the implementation of the aforementioned survey. The plaintiffs argue that the implementation of the survey, which excluded foreign residents from the respondents and contained discriminatory content, and the related expenditure of public funds, were illegal.

Plaintiff's thoughts

Plaintiff: Noboru Takemoto

The Governor of Mie Prefecture conducted the "10,000 Mie Prefecture Residents Survey" with the intention of reversing the previous policy of not hiring foreign residents of Mie Prefecture as prefectural employees, based on the prejudice that foreign residents do not abide by Japanese law and may leak Japanese secrets.

This represents a significant setback to the ideals and spirit of the "Ordinance to Eliminate Discrimination and Create a Mie Prefecture Where Human Rights Are Respected," which we have cherished until now, and is absolutely unacceptable.

I firmly believe that true security can be achieved not through discrimination and xenophobia, but by respecting the human rights of people in other countries and of other ethnicities, and by building peaceful and friendly relations.

The "Mie Prefecture Residents' Survey," which deliberately excluded residents with foreign nationality from the survey and seemed to lead respondents to the conclusion that nationality requirements are necessary for hiring prefectural employees, should never be tolerated and should be immediately withdrawn.

social significance

The primary significance of this trial lies in preventing the government from spreading prejudice against foreign residents and creating divisions within local communities.

In 1999, Mie Prefecture largely eliminated nationality requirements for hiring prefectural employees, and has since welcomed foreign residents as contributors to the local community. However, if the risk of information leakage is linked to nationality and the doors to employment are closed, it could send a message that all foreign nationals are treated as "dangerous." Exclusion by the government could lead to a chain reaction of further exclusion in the workplace, schools, and local communities.

Preventing information leaks is crucial. However, information leaks can occur regardless of an employee's nationality. What is needed is effective information management for all employees, including setting access permissions according to their duties and the information they handle, enforcing confidentiality obligations, providing training, and conducting audits. Unilateral exclusion based on nationality is not a fair measure.

Furthermore, the very nature of democracy is being questioned: is it acceptable to decide on issues concerning the rights and dignity of minorities through a majority-rule type survey that excludes those directly affected from the respondents?

In Mie Prefecture, which is experiencing population decline and an aging society, foreign residents are an important part of supporting the community. Protecting an environment where people with ability and motivation can contribute to the community through public service, regardless of nationality, will also lead to ensuring the quality and sustainability of administrative services.

This trial is about choosing a society where everyone can live in peace and security, while protecting the dignity of each individual, rather than a society that doubts and excludes people based on their nationality.

▲Scene from the lawsuit filing announcement meeting

Use of Donations  

• Litigation administrative costs

• Expenses for the legal team's activities (transportation, communication, copying costs, etc.)

• Fees for opinion letters: We plan to have experts write opinion letters.

• Court report meeting, public awareness and education event for this case

• Legal fees, etc.: After using the donations we receive from everyone to cover the various expenses listed above, any surplus will be used for legal fees.

Message from the head of the defense team

"To prevent history from going back!"

Mie Prefecture's groundbreaking policy in 1999, which eliminated or relaxed the "nationality requirement" that limited applicants to Japanese citizens, was a pioneering move nationwide, and I would like to express my deepest respect for it. Furthermore, the enactment of the comprehensive anti-discrimination ordinance, "Ordinance to Eliminate Discrimination and Create a Mie Where Human Rights Are Respected," was an extremely advanced development nationwide and has been highly praised from the perspective of protecting human rights, which emphasizes fairness and respect for all people, as well as from the perspective of international peace. In particular, the policy of eliminating the nationality requirement was extremely significant at a time when the issues of population decline and low birth rates are being seriously addressed.

I have deep doubts about why the nationality requirement is being reinstated now. Our country has strived to restore and advance world peace and the protection of fundamental human rights since the end of the war, and although progress has been slow, it has made progress. It is extremely regrettable that Mie Prefecture, which should be a leading prefecture that values the human rights of its citizens, including foreigners, is taking a step backward. I sincerely hope that we can somehow prevent this setback and that the respect for human rights and the elimination of discrimination among the people living in Mie Prefecture will be advanced even more strongly.

This is why I was given the opportunity to join the defense team in this case.

Lawyer Keiichi Uchikawa

Message from the legal team

The right of foreign nationals to hold public office is a right won through a fierce history of anti-discrimination movements, and is truly an asset for a harmonious society. It is not a right that can be easily taken away in the context of national security.

Furthermore, by using a survey, Mie Prefecture is attempting to shift the blame for its xenophobic policy choices onto the citizens who responded to the survey. However, the review of the nationality requirements for hiring prefectural employees is fundamentally a matter concerning the human rights of foreign nationals, and should not be influenced by the results of a survey.

Through this trial, we aim to clearly voice our opposition to the rise of xenophobia and to restore "coexistence" in our local community.

Introduction of the assigned lawyer

Keiichi Uchikawa, Aichi Prefectural Bar Association, Keizawa Law Office
Yuji Nakatani, Aichi Prefectural Bar Association, Nagoya Joint Law Office
Hiroko Tamaki, Aichi Prefectural Bar Association, Nagoya Southern Law Office
Keisuke Baba, Mie Prefectural Bar Association, Rivera Law Office
Myung-Ae Kim, Mie Prefectural Bar Association, Rivera Law Office
Yong-Woo Kwak, Aichi Prefectural Bar Association, Nagoya Joint Law Office
Tatsuru Kobayashi, Aichi Prefectural Bar Association, Nagoya First Law Office

Messages of support

Hiroshi Tanaka, Professor Emeritus, Hitotsubashi University

It is a grave mistake to exclude foreign residents from the "Mie Prefecture 10,000-Person Survey," which uses public funds from the prefecture. Can we allow such discrimination to continue? We ask for your support for the sake of a harmonious society in Japan going forward.

Eriko Suzuki, Faculty Member at Kokushikan University / Co-Representative Director of the NPO National Network for Solidarity with Migrants (Migrants' Network)

Local government budgets are, in principle, for the public good and are used to protect the lives and welfare of residents. Publicly funded projects must not harm the people living in the community, promote discrimination, or create division.

This is a lawsuit to restore dignity to all people and to restore a vibrant community.

In conclusion

This trial is not merely about the expenditure of public funds on a single survey. It questions whether it is acceptable to make decisions on issues concerning the rights and dignity of foreign residents based on the opinions of the majority without excluding those directly affected, and whether it is acceptable for the administration to promote policies that spread unfounded anxieties and lead to exclusion.

In order to continue the lawsuit and bring the issue to the attention of society, we need a lot of money for court procedures, expert opinions, reporting meetings, and public awareness campaigns. Every donation you make will be a great support in keeping our voices heard in court.

Regardless of nationality, we ask for your warm support to ensure that we can pass on to future generations a future where everyone is respected as a member of the community and can live in peace.