Today, July 14, 2026, at 3:30 p.m., the first hearing of the appeal was held in courtroom 808 of the Tokyo High Court.

The public gallery was almost completely full.

By the deadline, the following documents from both parties were prepared.

Appellant (first instance plaintiff)

• appeal letter
• statement of grounds for appeal
• Supplementary statement of grounds for appeal
• Appellants' Preparatory Brief (1)_20260601 [Professor Ogawa's Opinion]
• Appellants' Preparatory Brief (2)_260618 [Safety of Sterilization Surgery]
• Appellants' Preparatory Brief (3)_20260618 [Comparison with Cosmetic Surgery Procedures]
• Appellants' Preparatory Brief (4)_20260618 [Article 24, Paragraph 2]
• Appellants' Preparatory Brief (5)_20260703 [Professor Yamamoto's Opinion]
• Request for Clarification_260703
• Exhibit Description (Exhibits 101-142)_20260507
• Evidence Explanation Document (Exhibit 143)_260601
• Evidence Explanation Document (Exhibits 144-175)_260618
• Evidence Explanation Document (Exhibits A176-178)_260703

Appellee (defendant state of the first instance)

• Response_20260629
• Evidence Statement (4)_20260629

Next, the appellant's attorney, Kameishi, presented his arguments for the grounds for appeal , followed by the appellant Sato's statement of opinion .

Subsequently, the court requested opinions from both parties regarding the next steps in the proceedings.

The appellants stated that they would submit a written statement by the end of August, including their counterarguments to the answer and expert opinions.

In response, the appellee stated that they would consider whether or not to submit a counter-argument by October 2nd and would submit a written response if necessary.

In response, the court set the next hearing date for 2:30 p.m. on October 13th.

Furthermore, the appellant requested a response to the appellee's request for clarification, but the appellee stated that there was no need to respond, and the court instructed the appellee to prepare a counter-argument based on that.

With the above procedures, the arguments have concluded.

Please come again on the next date.

The first hearing of the appeal will be held on July 14, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 808 of the Tokyo High Court.

Please come and hear the statements from the plaintiffs and their representatives.

Additionally, a debriefing session will be held in Room 508 of the Bar Association building after the hearing.

Please come and visit us there as well.

On March 17, the Tokyo District Court (Presiding Judge Masanori Kamano) dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims.

The ruling stated that while Article 13 of the Constitution guarantees women the freedom to use contraception, the right to undergo sterilization is not included in that guarantee. On the other hand, it added that the provisions of the Maternal Protection Law regarding sterilization are "lacking in rationality in light of the purpose of the law," and that it is desirable for the system to be appropriately reviewed.

The plaintiff filed an appeal today.

While it is a step forward that the court recognized the freedom of contraception as a constitutionally guaranteed right and questioned the rationality of the provisions of the Maternal Protection Law, we will continue to advocate that the right to undergo sterilization is a constitutionally guaranteed right as part of self-determination regarding sex and reproduction.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who has supported this lawsuit.

The judgment and summary of the judgment can be viewed on the "Litigation Documents" page.
The defense team's statement is available here.

The eighth oral argument hearing was held on December 24, 2025, from 1:40 p.m. in Courtroom 803 of the Tokyo District Court.

At the beginning, a procedure to update the arguments was carried out due to a change in one of the judges.

The government then submitted its fifth preparatory brief , and the plaintiff submitted its rebuttal, preparatory brief (9) .

With this, it was confirmed that neither side had any additional claims or evidence, and the hearing came to an end.

The sentencing date was set for March 17, 2026 at 1:25 p.m.

Please come and observe the proceedings.

The seventh oral argument hearing was held at 11:30 a.m. on October 29, 2025, in Courtroom 806 of the Tokyo District Court.

The defendant filed Brief No. 4 , which refutes the plaintiff's Brief (7) .

The plaintiff has filed Brief (8) in rebuttal to the defendant's Brief 3 , Response to Request for Clarification , and Brief 4. The plaintiff has also submitted Exhibits Ko 91 to 100 (plaintiffs' statements and documents, etc.) as evidence to substantiate its claims. Please see Exhibits Ko 7 and Ko 8 for details.

Initially, it was considered to conclude the trial on this date, but the defendant wanted to refute the plaintiff's brief (8), and it was decided that the refusal would be made by November 28th.

In addition, the plaintiff requested a personal examination of the plaintiff within the hearing period, but this was rejected as it was deemed unnecessary.

Afterwards, all the plaintiffs and their representative Kameishi made statements.

The judges listened to the plaintiffs while looking at their faces as each party made a statement of about four minutes.

A summary of the opinion piece can be found here.

Finally, the next hearing was scheduled for December 24th at 1:40pm in Courtroom 803, and the hearing concluded.

The presiding judge stated that unless there are special circumstances, the trial will conclude at the next hearing.

After the hearing, a one-hour hearing report session was held in the conference room of the Bar Association building. The plaintiffs and their attorneys shared their thoughts on the hearing and answered questions from the participants.

As stated above, the trial is expected to conclude at the next hearing. Please come and observe.

Thank you for your continued support!

The hearing was held at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 9, 2025, in Courtroom 803 of the Tokyo District Court.

Prior to the same date, the defendants submitted a " Response to the Request for Clarification" (dated August 29, 2025) in response to the plaintiff's previous request for clarification (dated July 7, 2025, asking for questions and clarification regarding the defendant's third preparatory document).

In response to this, the plaintiff submitted Brief No. 7 (dated September 2, 2025) confirming the defendant's claims. Brief No. 7 confirmed the defendant's claims and stated that "if their claims differ from those of the plaintiff, we would like them to clarify their position."

At today's hearing, the presiding judge asked the defendant to respond to the above. However, the defendant replied that he would like one and a half months to respond in writing.

The plaintiff expressed doubts about the need for a new month and a half for a response, as the request merely confirmed the substance of the claims that had already been made repeatedly in writing. The court agreed and instructed the defendant to submit a response within a month at the latest. After discussions, the deadline for the response was set at October 14th.

The plaintiff stated that, given the defendant's "Response to the Request for Clarification," the defendant's arguments could be interpreted as unchanged from the original arguments, and that by the next hearing, the plaintiff would also submit its own arguments, and then submit a statement from the plaintiffs and request for a personal examination. The court also encouraged the plaintiff to prepare the arguments it envisages, regardless of the defendant's response.

Based on the above, the next hearing has been set for Wednesday, October 29th from 11:30am.

The trial is now reaching its climax. We would appreciate your continued support.

Preparatory procedures were held behind closed doors on Wednesday, July 30, 2025, from 1:30 p.m.

The purpose of this hearing was to discuss future progress, as the previously scheduled oral argument date was canceled.

First, the documents submitted by both parties within the deadline were organized.

Plaintiff:Preparatory brief (5) ,Request for clarification (dated July 7, 2025) ,Exhibit Ko 90: "Notice Concerning Partial Revision of the 'Enforcement of the Maternal Protection Act'" (Ministry of Labor Notification No. 1020-1, dated October 20, 2020) ,Exhibit Explanation 6 (Exhibit Ko 90)

Defendant:Third Preparatory Brief , Exhibits 11 to 14,Evidence Explanation ⑷ (Exhibits 11-14)

The third preparatory document submitted by the defendant contained statements regarding the significance of Article 3 of the Maternal Protection Act and its relationship to other articles that could be read in a way that differed from the notices posted by the government and the government's own previous assertions. Therefore, the plaintiff submitteda Request for Clarification (dated July 7, 2025) requesting an explanation.

The court has asked the defendant to respond to this explanation, giving him until August 29th.

The plaintiff's counsel orally confirmed with the defendant's counsel that the general policy in the response would be to withdraw or maintain the claims made in the third preparatory brief, and the defendant's counsel responded that the policy would be to maintain the claims.

The next hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, September 9th, starting at 4:00 p.m., and the hearing has now concluded.

The next oral argument will be open to the public. Please come and observe.

The sixth oral argument hearing, which was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 9th, had to be postponed at short notice due to the judicial body's circumstances.

We apologize for any inconvenience caused to those who had planned to attend.
We are currently working on adjusting the new deadline, aiming for the end of this month, and will report back to you as soon as it is confirmed.

The trial was held in Courtroom 803 of the Tokyo District Court from 2:00 p.m. on April 23, 2025.

We submitted a preparatory brief (4) in which we severely criticized the Defendant for not asserting the legislative intent or necessity of each requirement of Article 3 of the Law.

We have also compiled claims regarding violations of Article 24 of the Constitution.

The court pointed out that our argument for unconstitutionality had some unclear parts, and we were given approximately three weeks to clarify the content of our argument for unconstitutionality.

Based on this, the defendant has decided to submit a written rebuttal to our claims.

The next hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 9th at 11am. Please come and observe.

Thank you all for your continued warm support.

On January 29, 2025, the fourth oral argument in the "My Body Is Not a Mother's Body" lawsuit was held.
Prior to the same date, the defendant country submitted a rebuttal brief ( Defendant's Second Preparatory Brief ).

The contents were as follows:
The right to receive sterilization is not guaranteed by the latter part of Article 13 of the Constitution. The regulatory objective of "protecting the life and health of mothers" is legitimate and the regulatory means (prohibition of sterilization) are also reasonable. All of the requirements set out in Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Maternal Health Act are reasonable. There is no issue of violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

However, there were many points in the government's arguments that were unclear. For example, the government has long argued that Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Maternal Protection Act "is a requirement to permit sterilization, and therefore does not restrict the rights of the plaintiffs," but has not provided a clear reason for this. In addition, it has not clarified what "protecting the life and health of mothers" specifically means, and there has been no explanation as to why the requirements of endangering life and reducing health due to multiple births are necessary in relation to the purpose of the law, or why sterilization can be said to be a reasonable measure. Therefore, we believe that a major problem is that important assumptions for discussion are not shared, resulting in a situation where arguments do not mesh.

Even though we asked for an explanation in court, no explanation was given, and we were able to confirm that the judge was also aware of the problem that our arguments were not aligned. Therefore, at the next hearing, we plan to clarify the points of discrepancy in our discussions with the government and then refute the defendant's arguments.

The next oral argument hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 23rd at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 803 of the Tokyo District Court.
We would appreciate your continued support.