Report on the 9th Oral Hearing

The 9th oral hearing was held on March 12, 2026. The proceedings continued to attract considerable public attention, with the largest courtroom at the Tokyo District Court once again filled to capacity in the public gallery. We extend our sincere gratitude to all who attended.

The plaintiffs submitted three written briefs at this hearing, the contents of which were also presented orally during the proceedings.

First Brief — Rebuttal to the Defendant State's Submission

The plaintiffs had argued that, under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the State bears an obligation to investigate as a prerequisite to fulfilling its duty to supervise and direct the police, and that this position is explicitly affirmed in the General Recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). In response, the State argued that "General Recommendations are not legally binding." The plaintiffs' brief countered this by pointing out that, in the interpretation of treaties, the interpretations issued by treaty bodies are internationally recognized as authoritative and are routinely consulted as such — and that the State is deliberately attempting to reduce this issue to a narrow question of "legal bindingness."

The State had also drawn attention to a comparative survey conducted by the plaintiffs on experiences of stop-and-frisk questioning, noting that among those questioned, foreign nationals reported significantly less frequently than Japanese nationals that they had "no grounds for suspicion" — implying that foreign nationals are stopped because they are more likely to exhibit suspicious behavior. In rebuttal, the plaintiffs cited international research arguing that members of minority groups, including foreign nationals, tend to question whether they themselves may have done something wrong when subjected to police questioning, which accounts for this disparity.

Second Brief — The Impropriety of the State's Failure to Conduct Any Investigation

This brief argues that it is fundamentally unreasonable for the State to deny engaging in racially discriminatory stop-and-frisk practices without having conducted any substantive investigation into the actual situation. While the State did carry out a so-called "survey" in Reiwa 4 (2022) in response to growing public criticism of racial profiling, it was a perfunctory and deeply inadequate exercise. Notably, the State had not submitted this survey in the present litigation — presumably for this reason. The plaintiffs therefore chose to introduce it themselves, in order to demonstrate that the State has made no genuine effort to ascertain the facts on the ground.

Third Brief — The Impact of Racially Discriminatory Stop-and-Frisk Practices

This brief analyzes the effects of racially discriminatory stop-and-frisk practices on individuals, society, and police organizations. Drawing on an expert opinion by Professor Yuko Kawai of Rikkyo University, a researcher specializing in racial discrimination, the brief demonstrates that such practices do not affect only those of foreign origin who are directly targeted, but also shape fixed stereotypes about people of foreign origin among bystanders who witness them, accelerate their marginalization, and cause serious harm to their health and well-being. The brief further discusses how the police — an institution whose mission is the protection of human rights and fair law enforcement — erodes public trust in itself when it systematically denies the existence of racial profiling in its operations.

Prior to this hearing, the defendant State and the defendant Tokyo Metropolitan Government had each submitted their respective Fifth Preparatory Briefs (準備書面(5)).

The hearing also included a discussion of the future schedule of proceedings. It was agreed to coordinate toward holding two consecutive days of witness examination — including examination of the plaintiffs and the police officers who conducted the stop-and-frisk questioning — targeted for the session after next.

The eighth oral hearing was held on December 16, 2025.

Once again, we would like to thank the many people who attended the hearing as observers.

At this hearing, the plaintiffs submitted a preparatory brief (No. 15) arguing that the individual police stops experienced by each plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Police Duties Execution Act and were therefore unlawful. The defendants have contended that even where a police stop does not meet the requirements of Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Police Duties Execution Act, it may nevertheless be rendered lawful under the Police Act. In response, the plaintiffs argued in this preparatory brief that such reasoning is not supported by the legislative history or purpose of the relevant statutes.

During the hearing, the plaintiffs also presented an oral summary of this preparatory brief.

At the same hearing, the defendants submitted a preparatory brief (No. 5) criticizing the large-scale survey on experiences of police questioning that had been submitted by the plaintiffs.

Looking ahead, each party will submit further briefs responding to the opposing party’s arguments. In addition, in preparation for the examination of evidence, the parties will identify candidates for witnesses to be examined.

Thursday, September 25, 2025, 1:30 PM to 2:00 PM @ Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

I would like to express my gratitude to the many people who attended today's hearing. It is very encouraging to see so many people continue to attend and support the hearings, even now, a year and a half after the first hearing.

At this hearing, the plaintiff submitted two documents (Preparatory Documents 12 and 13) in which they provided detailed rebuttals to the defendant country's criticism of the plaintiff's proof of the "practice in question" (the practice of conducting police questioning based on the appearance of suspicious backgrounds).

The defendant country disaggregates the evidence and criticizes the credibility of each piece of evidence, but the value of this evidence lies in the fact that a large amount of evidence from a variety of sources all points to the existence of the operation in question.The plaintiff pointed out that the defendant country is avoiding a comprehensive and inductive evaluation of what this evidence indicates, and that although the defendant country has an obligation to investigate, it has ignored this and limited itself to detailed criticism of the plaintiff's evidence.Furthermore, the criticism is formal rather than substantive, and argued on this point.

The plaintiff also submitted a brief14 , which introduced the 2013 ruling in the U.S. federal district court case of Floyd v. City of New York and analyzed the parts that should be referenced in this case.

The defendant, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, submitted a translator's statement correcting the mistranslations that the plaintiff had pointed out as malicious at the previous hearing.

The next hearing, the 8th, will be held on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, from 11:00 AM @ Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

We hope you will come to observe the proceedings.

Tokyo District Court – Courtroom No. 103

Proceedings Summary

At the fifth oral hearing, the defendant submitted a rebuttal brief responding to the plaintiff’s previously filed preparatory brief.
The plaintiff also filed two briefs: one countering the Japanese government’s assertions regarding the meaning of shokumu shitsumon (police questioning), and another arguing that, under international treaties, the government has a duty to investigate, supervise, and prevent racial profiling.

In addition, the plaintiff protested the translation of the audio recording of the police questioning of plaintiff Mr. Shelton, which had been produced by the defendant Tokyo Metropolitan Government. The plaintiff argued that the translation employed racially discriminatory terminology and misinterpreted the recording, incorrectly suggesting that Mr. Shelton had committed a traffic violation, and demanded that the translation be corrected.

On April 22, 2025, the court, the plaintiffs, the defendant State, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, and Aichi Prefecture gathered to hold a conference to discuss the procedure.
The Defendants told that they are currently preparing a rebuttal to the documents submitted by the Plaintiff, and will submit it by July 3, 2025. The rebuttal will address each of the briefs submitted by the Plaintiff and will include briefs based on expert opinions about the statistics.

 The court also instructed the defendants Tokyo and Aichi Prefecture to submit evidence showing what was done from the police officers' perspective, using things like maps and photographs that visually clarify the facts regarding the police questionings that each plaintiff. This evidence is also due by July 3rd, as mentioned above.

 The next hearing, at which the plaintiffs will present their rebuttal, is scheduled for September 25th, with the time to be determined in the near future.

Report on Court Proceedings

On February 28, 2025, the fifth hearing was held. Once again, many people came to observe the proceedings, filling both the courtroom and the post-hearing briefing session with great energy and enthusiasm.

We sincerely appreciate your continued support.

In this session, the plaintiffs submitted the following briefs and evidence:

• Sixthth Brief  (Existence of the racially discriminatory practice of stopping 1)
• Seventh Brief (Existence of the racially discriminatory practice of stopping 2)
• Eighth Brief (Standard for the burden of proof)
• Ninth Brief (Application to the case)
• Evidence: Exhibits Kō 25 to 57

Both defendant Tokyo Metropolitan Government and defendant Aichi Prefecture have denied the existence of the practice in question in which law enforcement officers conduct stop-and-question procedures based on suspicions arising from racial appearance. In response, the plaintiffs presented extensive supporting evidence, including:

• A large-scale comparative study on stop-and-question experiences between Japanese nationals and foreign nationals
• An expert opinion analyzing the study above
• Testimonies from multiple former police officers
• Statements from individuals who have had similar experiences (collected through surveys, written statements, and newspaper articles)

These arguments were outlined in the Sixth and Seventh Briefs.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs analyzed case law from the European Court of Human Rights and courts in various countries, demonstrating that administrative agencies are often subject to shift of the burden of proof when engaging in racially discriminatory practices. Based on this analysis, the plaintiffs argued that such a standard should also be applied in this case (Eighth Brief).

Under this evidentiary standard, the plaintiffs argued that:

1. The existence of the  Racially Discriminatory Practice in Tokyo and Aichi should be recognized, and
2. The specific stop-and-question incidents involving the plaintiffs lacked reasonable grounds for suspicion (Ninth  Brief).

Defendants' Response and Scheduling Issues

The defendants stated that they were unable to estimate when they could submit their rebuttal briefs and that it would take two to three months to prepare their responses. The plaintiffs objected to this timeline, arguing that it was unreasonable for the defendants to require several months merely to determine when they could submit their briefs. Consequently, a significant portion of the hearing was spent discussing the scheduling of future proceedings.

As a result, the next hearing was scheduled as a procedural conference (non-public) on April 22 to clarify the timeline for the defendants' submissions. Following this, a public oral argument hearing is scheduled for either June 26 at 11:00 AM or July 17 at 11:00 AM.

Plaintiffs’ Presentation of Submissions and Evidence

During the hearing, the plaintiffs' legal representatives also presented oral arguments explaining the contents of the submitted briefs and evidence.

The plaintiffs believe that the evidence submitted in this session is highly persuasive. The collection and preparation of this evidence were made possible only through the extensive cooperation of many individuals. We express our sincere gratitude to all those who contributed to this effort.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your continued support of the racial profiling lawsuit. Although yesterday was a hearing that was more of a progress consultation, many people attended and the subsequent hearing report session was almost full. The plaintiffs and their legal team are always supported by those who attend hearings and report sessions. Thank you very much.

At the hearing, the following documents were submitted by both parties:

Defendant Tokyo: Preparatory brief (3), B11 (Guidance and enforcement standards for violations of the Road Traffic Act (many parts blacked out))

Defendant Aichi Prefecture: Preparatory brief (3)

Plaintiff: Fourth Preparatory Brief (Refuting document regarding the government's obligation to supervise), Exhibit 24 (Court precedent), Fifth Preparatory Brief (Request for clarification from Tokyo Metropolitan Government)

In addition, attorney Taniguchi pointed out to defendant Aichi Prefecture that the latest version of the internal documents submitted for 2022 (Otsu 3) contained some masking, but that most of the documents other than the masked parts were the original (Ko 4), and asked the defendant Aichi Prefecture to clarify the gist of its claims. However, the defendant Aichi Prefecture responded that this was limited to what it had stated in writing (preparatory documents (3), etc.).

The next hearing will be held on February 28th at 11:00 a.m. The plaintiffs will submit a general written rebuttal. We hope that many people will attend.

The second hearing was held on Wednesday, July 23, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court.

Despite it being the second hearing date, many people lined up to win tickets, exceeding the capacity of the venue. Thank you very much.
At the hearing, the first step was to review the written statements of both parties.

During the hearing period, the plaintiff submitted Preparatory Document 1 dated April 30 and Preparatory Document 2 dated May 29 , which specify the contents of the police questioning, as well as a request for clarification requesting that defendants Tokyo and Aichi Prefecture disclose documents and other materials in their possession and confirm the facts and circumstances regarding Exhibit 4.

Each of the defendants submitted a preparatory brief (1) within the hearing period ( Defendant State , Defendant Tokyo , Defendant Aichi Prefecture ).

In addition, as evidence for its claims, the defendant State submitted Exhibits A1 to A4 , and the defendant Tokyo submitted Exhibits B1 to B11 (Aichi Prefecture did not submit any evidence).

Afterwards, the head of the defense team, Taniguchi, verbally requested confirmation of two major points.

First, in their preparatory brief 1, defendants Tokyo and Aichi Prefecture, in response to the plaintiff's lawsuit for confirmation of illegality, made an argument that took it for granted that conducting routine search and questioning based on race, etc. is illegal. Therefore, we sought confirmation that they would not dispute the substantive illegality (the merits) in the lawsuit for confirmation of illegality.

Secondly, as we had asserted in our petition for clarification, we elaborated and explained that we would like to request disclosure of documents and records in order to clarify the issues at issue.

Regarding the second point, the court urged the defendants to consider the matter, and they responded that they would consider the matter, including whether it was necessary, and disclose it by the next hearing.

The plaintiff's counsel expressed the opinion that, if possible, it would be desirable to first make a list of the documents in hand and then clearly state the need for disclosure, and the defendants responded that they would meet in person to include that list as well.

Regarding the first point, there was a comment that it seemed to the court that if the lawsuit was dismissed based on the argument regarding the prerequisites for proceedings, then there would be no need to argue the merits of the lawsuit. Taniguchi, the head of the defense team, responded that this would normally be the structure, but in this case, the argument regarding the prerequisites for proceedings that should be dismissed was based on the premise that police questioning based on race, etc. is illegal, and therefore it seems that the intention is not to dispute the merits of the lawsuit in substance, and so he requested an clarification.

In response to this, the presiding judge urged the defendants to consider the matter before the next hearing.

Finally, the court asked the plaintiffs to refute the defendant's claim of mutual guarantees by the next hearing, and the plaintiffs agreed. Mutual guarantees are a system stipulated in Article 6 of the State Compensation Law, which requires that in order for a plaintiff of foreign nationality to seek state compensation, there must be a system in place in the foreign country where Japanese nationals can seek compensation from the national or local government. In this case, we plan to investigate the legal systems of the respective countries of Shelton and Matthew's nationality and make our case by the next hearing.

The next hearing will be held on Thursday, September 19th from 3pm in Courtroom 419 (the courtroom will be smaller as the main focus for the next hearing will be on procedural adjustments). We hope that many of you will attend.

Everyone

We would like to once again express our gratitude to all those who attended the last hearing.

Now, the second hearing is approaching, starting at 2pm on the 23rd of next week.

The other day, the court announced that this date was subject to a lottery.

 
https://www.courts.go.jp/app/botyokoufu_jp/detail?id=9766&list_id=15,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25

Please note that you must collect your lottery ticket at the designated location on the first floor of the Tokyo District Court by 1:30 pm on the day of the event.

We are looking forward to seeing many of you there.

The first hearing was held on Monday, April 15th from 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court.

More than 140 people lined up for the lottery to win spectator tickets, which were limited to 75 seats.
At the hearing, the head of the legal team, Taniguchi, gave an oral statement of the contents of the complaint. Using slides, he explained how frequent police questioning is a violation of the law, and how abusive police questioning of foreigners is practiced in Japan.

Plaintiffs Zane and Shelton then spoke powerfully in their own words about how being stopped and searched has hurt and upset them personally over the years.

After the hearing, a report session was held at the neighboring Bar Association building. On stage, Zain said, "I had some doubts, but I decided to become a plaintiff in the lawsuit, prepared to shoulder the hopes of many people. As the number of people who were born and raised in Japan from a young age, like me, increases, I want to change society so that they do not have to suffer the same troubles."

The next hearing will be on Tuesday, July 23rd from 14:00 in Courtroom 103. We hope that many of you will attend.