On August 24, the 15th oral argument in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Yamaguchi Prefectural Governor's official visit to the Gokoku Shrine was held at the Yamaguchi District Court.

The chief priest of the Gokoku Shrine is scheduled to be questioned as a witness in September. In this court hearing, the defendant, the prefecture, submitted the chief priest's statement as evidence, which indicated the approximate distance from the governor's home to the Gokoku Shrine. In the chief priest's statement, he explained that the memorial service is organized by the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association, and using funerals as an example, he explained that the governor's offering of sacred branches and speech were not religious acts. "Participants invited by the organizers respect the form of religious activity chosen by the organizers, even if it differs from their own religious beliefs."

The plaintiffs submitted and presented their ninth preparatory document. In this document, they made the following arguments: "Even just considering the undisputed facts, the religious nature of the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association is clear." "Whether a memorial service is religious should be judged by the specific location, the person in charge, the subject, the rituals, and the method of participation. In this case, 'at the Yamaguchi Prefecture Gokoku Shrine, a religious corporation, a ritual was performed by the shrine's priests as part of a ceremony, targeting the war dead who are considered deities of the shrine, following Shinto rituals, including the offering of tamagushi (sacred branches).' This is fundamentally different from merely 'commemorating' the war dead at a flower-laying ceremony in a park or a non-religious memorial service. The governor entered the religious ceremony as an official participant and even offered tamagushi."

The prefecture plans to refute the claims in its final written statement. The plaintiffs requested the examination of witnesses including the chief priest, the governor, a constitutional expert, the chairman of the Yamaguchi Prefecture Association of Bereaved Families, and one of the plaintiffs. Judge Kamata ruled that all witnesses except the chief priest would not be accepted.

The next hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 16th at 10:00 AM, where the chief priest of Gokoku Shrine will be questioned as a witness. The hearing is scheduled to last 30 minutes from the prefecture and 30 minutes from the plaintiff. The final arguments and conclusion of the trial will then take place on Wednesday, December 2nd at 10:30 AM, with a verdict expected within the fiscal year.

Plaintiff Attorney Uchiyama asked the judge to clarify the points of contention. "Is the visit in question unconstitutional and illegal (violating the principle of separation of church and state)?" and "Is the expenditure in question for the purpose of the visit (gasoline costs from the governor's home to the Gokoku Shrine) an illegal expenditure of public funds and an illegal financial accounting act?" The judge acknowledged that these were the points of contention. That was a step forward.

The next hearing, the examination of the chief priest as a witness, will be a crucial turning point. Lawyers fighting for the separation of church and state will come to Yamaguchi to pursue the collusion between the Gokoku Shrine, the bereaved families' association, and the prefectural government. Let's fight this trial together by attending as many hearings as possible.

Report of the 14th Oral Argument in the First Instance

The 14th oral argument was held at the Yamaguchi District Court on Monday, June 29, 2026, starting at 2 PM.

At the outset, the court acknowledged the written statements from both sides during this period (Plaintiff's briefs 7 and 8, Defendant's briefs 9-11) and the submission of documentary evidence (Plaintiff's Exhibit A47, Defendant's Exhibits B37-42). The court stated that it would not dismiss the claims regarding the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association, but that no further information was needed, and that it deemed it necessary to include the Shinto priest's testimony.

In response, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim that the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association is a religious organization, which the defendant considered a "new claim by the plaintiff," was too late and should be dismissed. However, if it was not dismissed, the previous claim that the governor's actions at the Yamaguchi Prefecture Gokoku Shrine were religious acts would be weakened or eliminated, and therefore, the chief priest's testimony would not be required.

However, the court made it clear that it did not understand the plaintiff's claims as the defendant did, and asked the plaintiff to present their arguments. The plaintiff then argued that the defendant's understanding of the plaintiff's claims was incorrect and that their previous arguments remained unchanged.

The court also requested the defendant to provide the approximate distance from the governor's residence to the Gokoku Shrine, as previously requested, and to submit the program and venue layout for the Yamaguchi Prefecture Gokoku Shrine Memorial Service.

The plaintiffs stated that they had also requested the examination of the governor and a constitutional scholar as witnesses, in addition to the chief priest, and that they were considering requesting further witness testimony. The court responded that they were only considering the chief priest as witness testimony.

The deadline for submitting the documents was set for August 10th (Monday), the next 15th oral argument hearing was scheduled for August 24th (Monday) from 13:30 to 14:30, and the Shinto priest's testimony was tentatively scheduled for either the morning of September 16th (Wednesday) or the morning or afternoon of September 28th (Monday). With these options, the oral argument hearing, which lasted over 30 minutes, came to an end.

Afterward, the venue shifted to the Yamaguchi Prefectural Bar Association building for a debriefing session. As usual, media interest remained low.

Ahead of the 14th oral argument, scheduled to open at 2 PM on Monday, June 29th, the plaintiff submitted Preparatory Document 7 on Monday, June 22nd, the deadline for submission. The actions of the Yamaguchi Prefectural Government (and in reality, each assembly member, each local government, and the Self-Defense Forces) in continuing and repeating specific religious events to honor the war dead, in response to invitations from the Yamaguchi Prefectural Gokoku Shrine, its Reverence and Support Association, the Prefectural Federation of Bereaved Families, and the Association for Honoring the War Dead for over 30 years, are clearly evident without even needing to apply the purpose and effect standard. The defendant governor submitted documentary evidence A47 (a printed excerpt of Exhibit A46) and documentary evidence A47 (violation of separation of church and state), while the defendant governor's side submitted preparatory document 10 (that the Prefectural Association of Bereaved Families is not a religious organization and, in the first place, it is too late to be questioned now and should be dismissed, otherwise the chief priest's testimony is unnecessary) and documentary evidence B37-42 (the proposal of the Prefectural Association of Bereaved Families, the registration and donation records of the Japan Association of Bereaved Families, newspaper articles about the difficulty of the association's continued existence, and the rules and website of Yasukuni Shrine). The following day, the defendant submitted preparatory document 11 to revise the wording.

The immediate plan was to proceed to the next hearing with this, but we decided that the defendant's arguments needed to be clarified, and on June 26th (Friday), we submitted Preparatory Document 8 (stating that the prefectural bereaved families' association's claims are not "too late" and that the existence of such claims is unrelated to the need for the chief priest's approval).

For details, please refer to the relevant documents which should be uploaded to this site on the day of the proceedings. However, what has made me reconsider through this exchange is the way we perceive and proceed with things (reason, ethics, and morality). This country once committed the irreparable mistake of a war of aggression. From this fact, the purpose of this trial is to ask what path we should take and to find the path we should walk, to put it dramatically, but I am reminded that there is an underlying principle that permeates the trial itself. It may seem obvious, but... I am reminded that it is necessary to continue to re-examine the way we live our own lives, and the everyday lives of those around us.

Attorney Hiroshi Kajima will be coming all the way from Osaka to attend the next hearing.

Report on the 13th Oral Argument, April 27, 2026 (Monday)

With the start of a new fiscal year and a change in the presiding judge, our plaintiffs' first oral argument with a newly formed legal team of seven lasted well over the scheduled time, exceeding 30 minutes. Three of us (one plaintiff and two attorneys) made statements, but these totaled only about 13 minutes. The remainder consisted mostly of statements made by the defendant's attorneys in response to the court's question, "Do you have any planned counterarguments?" These statements were essentially just their own assertions. The defendant's arguments were roughly as follows:

1. I would like the court record to include a note that the plaintiff's statement exceeded the allotted time by 10 minutes.
2. I have no intention of responding to each and every point in the plaintiff's brief (6) (submitted at the end of March) (I confidently assert that I only glanced at the table of contents). I request that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed as they are belated (I will submit a letter to that effect). In particular, regarding the character of the bereaved families' association, I believe I stated on page 4 of the plaintiff's brief (2) that I would "not assert" that point.
3. If the plaintiffs place the emphasis of their argument on the "bereaved families' association," they should request the cancellation of the appointment of the chief priest (already hired) as a witness regarding the "Gokoku Shrine," arguing that he is "unnecessary" (and submit a written statement to that effect).
4. We are also considering the "Fifty-Year History of the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association" (Exhibit 46). It describes the involvement of Christianity in the 1940s. Also, as the plaintiffs are likely aware, after the memorial service at the Yamaguchi Prefecture Gokoku Shrine, they attended a Buddhist memorial service in the afternoon.
5. The main point of contention in this case is whether the actions constitute financial accounting practices. The plaintiff is merely arguing that the preceding actions were unconstitutional.

If you want to expedite the proceedings of the lawsuit, you should have read our preparatory document (6) and submitted your arguments in writing before proceeding. Your words and actions are contradictory. Furthermore, you said that the prolonged lawsuit is causing inconvenience to the prefecture, but from our perspective, that's incredibly brazen. And point 3 is an argument that you haven't read our document, but it is the defendant who is using the bereaved families' association as justification for claiming that the official visit to the Gokoku Shrine is a social ritual. I'm not sure how point 4 relates to this lawsuit, but I suspect you're trying to justify not requiring the Gokoku Shrine's chief priest to give testimony. Point 5 should have already been resolved, but since the presiding judge has changed, it seems you want to bring up this initial point again.

Ultimately, the defendant agreed to submit all the details in writing again, and we agreed to submit documentary evidence regarding the religious nature of the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association. The deadline for submitting both documents is June 22nd (Monday).

The next hearing will be held on Monday, June 29th at 2:00 PM in courtroom 31 of the Yamaguchi District Court .

While the goal is to establish the human rights of minorities, it was a little disappointing that there were so few observers.

On April 16, 2026 (Thursday), a "Request to State Opinions" was submitted.

On March 31, 2026 (Tuesday), the plaintiff submitted his sixth preparatory document.

With the resumption of the trial, which had been suspended for a long time, a progress consultation (discussion between the plaintiff, defendant, and the court) based on the opinion on clarifying the issues that we submitted on December 26th of last month was held on January 14th, 2026, in Courtroom 23 of the Yamaguchi District Court.

The two defendant attorneys entered the courtroom accompanied by three or four Yamaguchi Prefecture officials, and upon seeing the six of us plaintiffs lined up in front of them, they exclaimed to our attorney, "Wasn't this just a discussion between lawyers?", something that was pointless to say. I felt that everything was revealed here.

Now, our opinion paper's main content is to propose that the method (order) of applying the purpose and effect standard be adopted and the trial be conducted based on the precedent-based legal principle of the Supreme Court's ruling on the unconstitutionality of the Ehime Tamagushi Fee lawsuit, and to add the missing fact-finding by Gokoku Shrine and the Prefectural Bereaved Families Association as a new point of contention.

The court's opening remark was, "I know it's a little late now , but ..." Then, when the defendant was urged to refute, he responded predictably, saying, "There is nothing more to refute. We should proceed as before. This goes against the spirit of the revised Civil Procedure Act." However, at a loss for words, the defendant's statement that "There is nothing more to refute" meant that we would make a new argument, the outline of which was already outlined in the opinion. This not only made the court unreasonable, but also suggested that the defendant had not even read the opinion. And indeed, the defendant said, "I didn't read the opinion thoroughly."

In the end, the defendant failed to turn the tide and now asked us to include a witness statement in our next written request.

What we need to accept is that the trial has been suspended for about six months due to our circumstances (although the defendant was in charge for the first two months). Therefore, our attorney promised to prepare the next documents taking into account the defendant's requests and requested that the deadline for submitting the documents be set by the end of March.

The court accepted this and, anticipating a rebuttal from the defendant - which would be fine if the defendant did not actually refute it, as this would amount to accepting our argument - and set the next hearing for Monday, April 27th at 14:00.

A fresh start with a new legal team - ongoing negotiations

In accordance with the wishes of the new legal team, a progress consultation will be held on Wednesday, January 14, 2026 at 14:30 to clarify the issues and discuss future progress.

The four plaintiffs are also scheduled to attend.

The next date will be decided.

Due to our lawyer's emergency hospitalization, the 13th hearing (Wednesday, September 17, 2025) has been postponed.

We are working hard, including recruiting additional lawyers, in preparation for the next hearing.

After the previous hearing (12th hearing on Wednesday, June 4, 2025), the defendant submitted an application to change the next hearing date on Wednesday, June 18. The next hearing was scheduled to be the hearing date for the chief priest, but the chief priest was unable to attend and was considering whether to appear, and the defendant was also considering whether to question him. Will the defendant accompany the chief priest to represent his schedule?

I thought the postponement was inevitable, but no matter how long I waited, I received no further communication. Finally, the day before the scheduled hearing date of July 9th (Wednesday), the court contacted our lawyer. The defendant's schedule was such that September 17th (Wednesday) was the only option, and there was no other option.

This is the kind of behavior from a defendant who had requested a speedy trial when the court requested proof regarding the "war heroes." This reminded me of the first lawsuit filed by residents against the landfilling of the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant site, which we won after damaging the court's image. This was the only lawsuit we won regarding the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant. However, the decision was overturned at the high court and later on.

Returning to the main topic, in addition to presenting a new date, the defendant submitted, as expected, a request for questioning of the chief priest himself. However, he called it a summons. Even though they were arranging the schedule...

As for the proposed schedule, my lawyer said it was possible, so I adjusted my schedule and agreed to the defendant's request for Wednesday, September 17th at 10:50. Now that I have the time, I would like to spend it on creating a written interrogation, taking into account the defendant's summary of the interrogation.