[Archive project No.0003]

* The donation for this case will be paid to JCLU, which supported the trial at that time.

Ronald Alan McLean, a United States citizen, entered Japan in 1969. I stayed for one year, assuming I worked as an English teacher.

While working as an English teacher, McLean studied and studied Biwa and Koto with her teacher. Eventually, she wanted to teach Biwa and Koto at an American university, and McLean applied for a one-year extension of the stay, as she needed to continue her research.

Upon receiving the application, the Minister of Justice has ruled that "you will be allowed to renew your stay for 120 days as a preparation period for departure." So McLean also applied for a renewal of his / her stay after 120 days had passed. The Minister of Justice has ruled that McLean will not be allowed to renew the status of residence.

Mr. McLean has filed a lawsuit seeking reversal of the Minister's action, which disallowed the renewal of his stay, as illegal.

In the lawsuit, the defendant, the Minister of Justice, alleged that Mr. McLean carried out political activities in Japan as one of the reasons for the suspension of renewal of residence. Some of them were:

・ Distributed hangar strike flyers to oppose the immigration bill.

-Participated in a civil movement against the Vietnam War and protested at the US Embassy.

-Participated in a demonstration march to protest the immigration detention camps.

-Participated in an anti-war rally and marched near a US military base.

・ Participated in the United States Secretary of State's opposition to Japan at Haneda Airport.

The Tokyo District Court in the first instance found that Mr. McLean's political activities could not harm the interests of the Japanese people and the country itself. McLean won the case, judging from the philosophy of international cooperation and fundamental human rights guarantees that this was an unlawful disposition outside the discretion given to the Minister of Justice.

In response, the Tokyo High Court of Appeals stated that McLean's activities had blamed Japan's foreign policy and that the United States, which has a friendly relationship with Japan, is pursuing national policy. And dismissed McLean, judging that this rejection of renewal of status of residence was within the discretion given to the Minister of Justice and was not illegal. Was.

And the Supreme Court defeated McLean, stating:

-The constitution does not guarantee the right of foreigners to stay in Japan or to demand that they stay there.

・ Renewal of the period of stay is at the discretion of the Minister of Justice.

・ The Constitution guarantees the freedom of political activities, except for activities that affect Japan's political decision-making or its implementation, which are considered to be improper from the status of foreign nationals. It extends to foreigners who do.

・ However, the guarantee of the basic human rights of the Constitution for foreigners includes the guarantee that the act of receiving the basic human rights of the Constitution during the period of stay will not be taken into account as reluctant circumstances when renewing the period of stay. Not something.

・ McLean's political activities cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the Constitution's guarantees. Includes items that cannot be said to have no effect on the relationship.

-Therefore, even if the Minister of Justice does not approve the renewal of the period of stay in consideration of such activities, it cannot be said that it has exceeded the scope of its discretion or has been abused.

The decision of the Supreme Court is a leading case for jurisprudence on whether Japanese citizens are guaranteed constitutional rights in Japan.