On June 17th, the seventh oral argument hearing was held in the third lawsuit concerning the right to separate surnames for married couples (Sapporo).

The hearing was held in courtroom 805, and many supporters came to observe both the hearing and the debriefing session.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and debriefings, and to everyone who watched the live streams; we appreciate your continued support.

At the hearing, the plaintiffs submitted a document titled "Summary of the Plaintiffs' Arguments," while the defendants submitted a summary of their arguments, a preparatory brief (3), and evidence (Exhibits 17-20). (These can be viewed on the litigation documents page.)

At this hearing, since the presiding judge and the left associate judge had changed from the previous hearing, both the plaintiff and the defendant were required to present the key points of what they had argued and proven in court so far.

First, Attorney Miura, representing the plaintiffs, gave a 30-minute presentation using slides that included diagrams and other creative elements to illustrate their arguments.

Next, regarding the defendant, they did not make a presentation in court, as they stated in their "Summary of Arguments."

Furthermore, it has been formally decided that the two plaintiffs will be questioned in person at the next hearing. The plaintiffs' attorneys will have a maximum of 40 minutes to question each person, and the defendants' attorneys will have a maximum of 30 minutes to question each person.

◆The next hearing date for the Sapporo lawsuit is as follows:

Next time, we'll finally get to the plaintiff's testimony, the highlight of the trial.

We would love for you to attend the hearing and the debriefing session.

Date and time: Wednesday, July 29, 2026, 1:30 p.m.

Location: Sapporo District Court, Courtroom 805

We would appreciate your continued support.

On June 9th, the eighth oral argument hearing was held in the third lawsuit concerning the right to separate surnames for married couples (Tokyo).

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and debriefing sessions, and to everyone who watched the live stream.

At the hearing, the defendant presented their preparatory brief (5) and submitted Exhibits B19-21. The plaintiff also submitted a written opinion regarding witness testimony.

The next hearing is scheduled for Monday, August 3rd, at 3:00 PM. However, this will be a procedural hearing where the plaintiff, defendant, and court will discuss whether or not to accept witness testimony. Since the procedural hearing is closed to the public, unfortunately, you will not be able to attend.

If we decide to conduct a witness examination, a date will be set for the formal examination, and we will inform you again at that time.

At the debriefing session, we heard from the plaintiffs about their enthusiasm for the witness examination. Everyone was very motivated, which was very encouraging!

On March 25th, the sixth oral argument hearing was held for the third selective separate surnames lawsuit for married couples (Sapporo).

The hearing was held in courtroom 805, and many supporters came to observe both the hearing and the debriefing session.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and debriefings, and to everyone who watched the live streams; we appreciate your continued support.

https://map.yahoo.co.jp/v2/place/Rj8KZDQHNnc

At the hearing, the plaintiff submitted the 18th and 19th preparatory briefs (2) and evidence (Exhibit A365-392, Exhibit B6-7, Exhibit C1-5), while the defendant submitted a response to the request for clarification.

During the hearing, the presiding judge asked the plaintiff whether his understanding of the concept of surname as written and sounded was correct, regarding the discussion in the 18th preparatory brief, and Attorney Miura replied that it was correct.

The next session will feature a counter-argument from the defendant.

Following the deadline, a closed-door progress meeting was held to discuss the progress of future meetings.

During the hearing, it was announced that the presiding judge and the associate judge on the left, who were in office at the time of the sixth hearing, would be transferred. The plaintiffs were asked to give a presentation on their arguments at the next hearing so that the newly appointed judges could better understand their position, and the plaintiffs agreed. The defendants were also told that they would do so if necessary.

Furthermore, while a formal decision is expected at the next hearing, the plaintiffs will be questioned at the hearing after that.

◆The next hearing date for the Sapporo lawsuit is as follows. We hope you will come and observe the hearing and attend the debriefing session next time as well.

Date and time: Wednesday, June 17, 2026, 1:30 p.m.

Location: Sapporo District Court, Courtroom 805

We would appreciate your continued support.

On March 11th, the seventh oral argument hearing was held in the third lawsuit concerning the right to separate surnames for married couples (Tokyo).

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and debriefing sessions, and to everyone who watched the live stream.

During the hearing, the plaintiffs presented their 20th to 21st preparatory briefs.

In the 20th preparatory document, we refuted the defendant's preparatory document (4) submitted at the previous hearing; in the 21st preparatory document, we pointed out that the circumstances have changed significantly since the 2015 Grand Bench judgment; and in the 22nd preparatory document, we gathered the voices of many citizens through numerous statements and argued that optional separate surnames for married couples are desired by people of all ages and genders in society.

The plaintiffs were given a total of 30 minutes to present their arguments, and lawyer Miura delivered persuasive and powerful arguments regarding the 20th preparatory document, lawyer Kawami regarding the 21st preparatory document, and lawyer Shioya regarding the 22nd preparatory document.

Next time, by May 19th, the defendant will submit a response to the documents submitted by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff will inform the plaintiff of their planned witness testimony.

The questioning is fast approaching, so I would appreciate your continued support.

Please come and observe the proceedings and the debriefing session.

Date and Time: Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 11:00 AM

Location: Courtroom 103 (Grand Courtroom), Tokyo District Court

On January 23rd, the fifth oral argument hearing was held for the third selective separate surnames lawsuit for married couples (Sapporo).

The hearing was held in courtroom 805, and many supporters came to observe both the hearing and the debriefing session.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and debriefings, and to everyone who watched the live streams; we appreciate your continued support.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCcOYQHM_I

At the hearing, the defendant submitted preparatory documents (2) number 10-17 and evidence (Exhibit B16).

During the hearing, in response to questions from the presiding judge, the defendants stated that they would not make any further arguments regarding the plaintiff's request for clarification, nor would they make any further arguments regarding the rationality of the legal marriage, and that they had no plans to add anything at this time. They also stated that they would not dispute whether the plaintiff's legal coercion had resulted in the marriage.

Next time, we will hear the plaintiff's arguments and counterarguments, as well as the request for examination of the parties.

◆The next hearing date for the Sapporo lawsuit is as follows. We hope you will come and observe the hearing and attend the debriefing session next time as well.

Date and time: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 from 11:00

Location: Sapporo District Court, Courtroom 805

We would appreciate your continued support.

On December 18th, the sixth oral argument hearing for the third selective separate surnames lawsuit (Tokyo) was held.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and report sessions, and to everyone who watched the live stream.

At the hearing, the defendant government submitted a written rebuttal, which not only failed to refute the plaintiffs' new arguments in this lawsuit, such as societal changes, the inability to resolve issues through the expansion of common name use or legislation, and treaty theory, but also ignored the inconvenient points of the plaintiffs' constitutional arguments. Furthermore, the few rebuttals they submitted were unjust and dishonest, citing the fact that the Diet had deliberated on the issue, which considered the inclusion of a marriage registration as a free and equal negotiation, as the basis for its constitutionality.

The next hearing for the Tokyo lawsuit will be held on Wednesday, March 18, 2026, at 2:00 PM. The plaintiffs are scheduled to present their arguments (mainly constitutional arguments) and provide evidence. They will also further argue and provide evidence about social changes using objective data showing family diversity, and will provide evidence through written statements and other means.

Please come and observe the hearings and report sessions. It will be a great encouragement to us.

Date and time: Wednesday, March 18, 2026, 2:00 PM

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103 (Grand Court)

On September 1st, the fifth oral argument hearing for the third selective separate surnames lawsuit (Tokyo) was held.

This time too, the hearing was held in the Grand Court, and everyone who attended was able to observe the hearing. Many people also participated in the report session that followed.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and report sessions, and to everyone who watched the live stream.

At the hearing, the plaintiffs presented Preparatory Documents No. 11 to No. 19 regarding their arguments, and submitted Exhibits KoA280 to 364 regarding documentary evidence. In accordance with the principle of oral proceedings, Attorneys Terahara and Shio argued the contents of the preparatory documents. Both attorneys delivered a strong message to the court, stating that the 2015 Grand Bench decision should not be easily followed because gender inequality existed in the 2015 Grand Bench decision itself, that there had been many circumstances in the meantime that required the 2015 Grand Bench decision to be changed, and that forcing married couples to have the same surname was a violation of the Convention.

The next hearing in the Tokyo lawsuit is scheduled for the defendants to make their rebuttal.

Please come and observe the hearings and report sessions. It will be a great encouragement to us.

Date and time: Thursday, December 18, 2025, 11:00 AM

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103 (Grand Court)

On June 11th, the third oral argument hearing was held in the Third Optional Separate Surnames for Married Couples Lawsuit (Sapporo).

The hearing was held in Courtroom 805, and many supporters were in the audience for the hearing and the hearing report meeting.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and reports, and to everyone who watched the live broadcast, for your continued support.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgB_vA4qsEs

At the hearing, the defendants submitted Defendant No. 1 Preparatory Brief.

In the defendant's first preparatory brief, it was argued that forcing married couples to have the same surname does not violate Articles 13, 14, or 24 of the Constitution.

At the hearing, the defense team (Mr. Miura) asked the government to respond to the following questions:

• On page 17 of the First Preparatory Brief, the Defendant argues that "even if the use of maiden names as common names becomes widespread, a married couple and their children have the same surname, and in situations where an individual indicates that they are a family member, the surname may be used as a family name," and that the surname does not lose its function of publicly announcing the family name to the public. But what specific situations are envisaged as "situations where an individual indicates that they are a family member"? For example, does a situation where a person checks a family register to confirm kinship relationships fall under "situations where an individual indicates that they are a family member"?
• On page 18 of the first preparatory brief, the defendant argues that "the provisions regarding the surnames of married couples reflect the fact that a legitimate child is defined as an entity that has a connection to each spouse such that the child can equally use the same surname as each spouse (Article 790, paragraph 1 of the same law)," but what does "a connection to each spouse such that the child can equally use the same surname as each spouse" mean?
• In response to the plaintiffs' assertion that "contracting states of a treaty (note: international human rights treaty) have a legal obligation to abide by that treaty (Article 26 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties)" (p. 64 of the complaint), the defendant has admitted and denied this by stating that "the remainder is disputed" (Reply No. 3-7(i), p. 21). Does this mean that the defendant believes that even if a country is a contracting state of a treaty, it has no obligation to abide by the treaty?

The presiding judge also asked the defendant the following questions: 1) Was the statement on page 17 of the First Preparatory Document, "The expansion of the use of common names will to a certain extent alleviate the disadvantage suffered by those who change their surname upon marriage," intended to acknowledge that the disadvantage has not been eliminated? 2) There is an argument that the case must be examined from the perspective of whether there are circumstances that warrant a change based on the Supreme Court decisions of 2015 and 2021, but what was the basis for this?

The defendant refrained from answering any questions from the plaintiff or the presiding judge in court, and instead agreed to respond in writing by July 11th (at the defendant's request, the plaintiff's side agreed to submit the above questions in writing).

At the next hearing, the plaintiff will refute the first preparatory brief submitted by the defendant and will once again make its arguments regarding constitutional interpretation.

A project is underway to collect statements from people about the sense of loss of identity that comes with changing their surname, and the anxiety that comes with being forced to give up their marriage, and to submit these in the lawsuit.

https://bessei.net/call_for_statements/

A name is a personal right, and the current Civil Code's system of forcing married couples to have the same surname is a violation of human rights! Let's get our voices heard at the court!

The next hearing for the Sapporo lawsuit is as follows. We hope you will attend the next hearing and report session.

Date and time: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 from 11:00

Venue: Sapporo District Court, Courtroom 805

We appreciate your continued support.

On May 15th, the fourth oral argument hearing was held in the third selective separate surnames lawsuit (Tokyo).

The hearing was held in Courtroom 103, and many supporters were in attendance in the audience for the hearing and hearing report meeting.

Thank you to everyone who attended the hearings and reports, and to everyone who watched the live stream, for your continued support.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of81KiDgbNA

At the hearing, the defendants submitted a defendant's brief (2) arguing that the plaintiffs lacked the grounds for lawsuit, and a defendant's brief (3) refuting the plaintiffs' claim of unconstitutionality.

In the defendant's preparatory brief (3), the plaintiff argued that there was no need to admit or deny the part of the claim that questioned compliance with international human rights treaties. The plaintiff therefore considered this attitude of the defendant to be problematic and submitted the defendant's preparatory brief (10) requesting a clear admission or denial of the part regarding compliance with the treaties.

In the next hearing, we plan to refute Defendant's Brief (2) and Defendant's Brief (3) submitted by the defendant, and will be given approximately three months to prepare the rebuttal.

The defendants' argument is that, based on the 2015 Grand Bench Judgment and the 2021 Grand Bench Decision, the judgment should not be changed even based on the circumstances asserted by the plaintiffs.In response to this, the plaintiffs have informed the court that they will submit a written rebuttal arguing that the judgment framework of the 2015 Grand Bench Judgment and the 2021 Grand Bench Decision was incorrect in the first place, and that even if it were correct, given changes in society, the current provisions, which do not allow for the exception of couples getting married while retaining each other's surnames, are unconstitutional.

We are also currently working on a project to collect statements from people about the sense of loss of identity that comes with changing their surname, and the anxiety that comes from being forced to give up their marriage, and to submit these to the lawsuit.

https://bessei.net/call_for_statements/
A name is a personal right, and the current Civil Code's mandatory system of requiring married couples to have the same surname is a violation of human rights! Let's get our voices heard in court!

◆

The next hearing date for the Tokyo lawsuit is as follows. We hope you will attend the next hearing and report session.

Date and time: Monday, September 1, 2025 from 11:00 a.m.

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103 (Grand Court)

We appreciate your continued support.

Since we filed lawsuits with the Tokyo and Sapporo District Courts on March 8, 2024, we have received tremendous support from all of you. We sincerely appreciate your generosity. So far, we have incurred various expenses, including travel costs for plaintiffs and lawyers, printing fees for legal documents, communication costs, and research expenses. Thanks to your donations, we have been able to continue the lawsuit.

In September 2024, the Liberal Democratic Party's presidential election, as well as the House of Representatives election in October, brought the issue of introducing an optional separate surname system for married couples into political debate. Furthermore, on October 29, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued its fourth recommendation urging Japan to amend its laws to allow married individuals to retain their birth names. While momentum toward introducing the optional separate surname system continues to grow, there remains strong opposition in the National Diet, where many believe that the use of a commonly known name (alias) is sufficient. This reinforces our belief that it is crucial to win in court and establish that the requirement for married couples to share the same surname is unconstitutional.

The trial has only just begun, and it will take time to obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court. In the meantime, we must continue to raise awareness about the lawsuit through post-trial report meetings, events, and the creation of promotional materials. Additionally, we need to conduct further large-scale research to strengthen our legal arguments.

Another related lawsuit highlights the issue further: A couple who married in New York submitted their marriage documents to Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo, on June 13, 2022, in accordance with Article 41, Paragraph 1 of the Family Register Act. However, since they chose not to adopt a single shared surname, the Chiyoda Ward mayor refused to accept their marriage registration. When the couple challenged this decision in the Tokyo Family Court, the court ruled on January 10, 2025, that while their marriage was valid, the rejection of their registration was not unjustified. This ruling confirms that even when a couple marries abroad with separate surnames, their marriage is legally recognized in Japan. However, due to Article 750 of the Civil Code, they cannot officially document their marital status in the family register. This case further exposes the irrationality of Article 750, making it clear that legal reform is urgently needed to eliminate such contradictions.

The government has substantial manpower and financial resources, whereas the plaintiffs and legal team are private individuals. It is only through your generous contributions that we have the courage and strength to fight this legal battle. To achieve our second fundraising goal, we sincerely ask for your continued support. Thank you for standing with us.