The Osaka High Court issued a dismissal decision on September 25, 2025.

 The decision is posted under Litigation Documents > High Court > Arguments and Judgments.

 The time available to prepare the documents requesting further review by the Supreme Court was very short, and following the decision, the legal team and the plaintiff had to work together to concentrate on preparing the documents, so we are now able to report the progress to you all. We ask for your patience.

 ■ Summary of the Osaka High Court decision

 <Basic framework as a premise>

 When a constitutional judgment is made on the issue of whether a legal provision violates human rights, the general framework is to first clarify what human rights the provision restricts, and then determine whether the restriction on human rights is justified, taking into account the purpose of the provision and the degree of disadvantage caused to the parties by the restriction on rights.

 In line with this framework, the appellant's (petitioner's) arguments and the Osaka High Court's decision can be summarized as follows:

 < restrictions against human rights>

 The appellant, who already lives her life as a woman, is experiencing various difficulties in her daily life because her official documents list her as a different gender from her actual lifestyle.

 Even though they have undergone gender transition and are living a happy daily life in accordance with their gender identity, their lives are being hindered by the way their gender is treated on official documents.

 We categorize the benefit of being able to live a social life like most people without such hindrances as the "right to have one's gender identity respected."

 If the Special Act's non-marriage requirements were to be met to resolve the difficulties arising from this discrepancy, the appellant and his wife would have no choice but to choose divorce in exchange for a change in their legal gender status.

 However, for couples who have already lived together as husband and wife for many years, it is also an important right to be able to continue living together without losing the legal, social, and psychological benefits that they have already enjoyed through legal marriage.

 Although each of these should be guaranteed as a human right under the Constitution, we are faced with a choice between the two, and realizing one means that the other cannot be realized.

 The Osaka High Court decision avoided explicitly stating that these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, but expressed the view that the special law does not necessarily directly restrict human rights, citing the fact that "the appellant could marry another person (a man) after divorcing his wife and changing his gender identity," and that "the appellant is not the only one who cannot marry someone of the same sex (cisgender same-sex couples, etc., cannot marry)."

 <Can restrictions on rights be justified?> 

 <Chaos in Law-Order?>

 The Osaka High Court ruled that the non-marriage requirement was unconstitutional, stating that it was reasonable for the purpose of avoiding disruption to the "order in which only heterosexual couples can marry."

 However, Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Special Act provides for an adjustment that does not change the status prior to the change of gender status. Even if the appellant's change of gender status is approved, he remains a "husband" in relation to his wife, and this does not have any retroactive legal effect on the marriage that has already taken place as a legal couple.

 Even if we assume that under the current Civil Code, marriage is legally limited to couples consisting of a man and a woman, there is no contradiction with that interpretation.

 The court made an incomprehensible interpretation of the Civil Code that ignored the provisions of Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Special Measures Act, and stated that this would cause confusion. This leaves us with no choice but to conclude that the interpretation of the Civil Code and the Special Measures Act was incorrect.

 ＜Spousal benefits?＞

 The Osaka High Court also stated that the non-marriage requirement is justified by stating that "it is also necessary to protect the rights and interests of the spouse of the person seeking gender change."

 It is not clear what rights and interests of spouses are believed to be infringed if a change in gender status is permitted.

 The appellant's wife wishes to change the appellant's gender status and continue the marriage.

 Even if the appellant's gender change is approved as stated above, it will have no effect on the legal marriage that the two have already entered into, and therefore the wife will not suffer any disadvantage.

 If we were to consider a case in which "gender change is not in line with the spouse's wishes" apart from the appellant and his wife couple in this case, then this would be unfair in the first place, as it would be considering a fictitious spouse that is unrelated to this case.

 Of course, there are cases in society where a gender change does not align with the spouse's wishes. In such cases, it is certainly possible that the spouse may face confusion and distress. However, a spouse does not have the "right to restrict the other spouse's gender identity." Regardless of the circumstances, the premise of the marriage system is that when a serious disagreement in wishes makes it difficult to continue the marriage, interests are protected during divorce proceedings.

 In addition, people who apply for a change of legal gender status usually have already transitioned their social gender and are faced with the inconvenience of a mismatch between their social gender and the gender on official documents.

 Therefore, if your spouse's wishes do not align with yours, the discrepancy will become apparent at the time of coming out as transgender or during the process of social gender transition.

 Changing your legal gender does not suddenly put you against your spouse's wishes.

 Even if consideration is needed for spouses who begin gender transition after marriage and cannot accept it, this goal cannot be achieved by imposing a non-marriage requirement.

 Problems with the Osaka High Court decision

 To summarise, the following problems exist: 

 There are many issues, and one cannot help but suspect that a forceful decision was made with a predetermined conclusion in mind.

 We are concerned that the Osaka High Court's decision may cause people in similar situations to give up, thinking, "As long as same-sex marriage is not possible, we cannot change our gender status," or that it may lead to a misunderstanding in society that "only heterosexual couples should be able to marry."

 However, upon careful consideration, it is clear that the reasoning behind the Osaka High Court decision cannot be considered a legitimate interpretation of the law.

 We will take on the Supreme Court hearing, making use of the accumulated rulings won in the "Freedom to Marry for All" lawsuits, and believing that the Supreme Court will reach a correct decision.

 ■To the Supreme Court

 As a procedure to seek a decision from the Supreme Court, we filed a "special appeal" and a "petition for permission appeal."

 In documents called the "Statement of Grounds for Special Appeal" and the "Statement of Grounds for Appeal for Permission," we have made detailed rebuttals to the Osaka High Court decision.

 If you want to know more, please read on.

 It is posted under Litigation Documents > Supreme Court > Arguments and Judgments.

 It is unclear when the Supreme Court will make a decision.

 The defense team will also be waiting to hear from the Supreme Court.

 We will let you know if there is any progress that we can share with you.

 In addition, comments from the appellant, Miki, are posted in the same tab as the Osaka High Court decision.

 (I used to use the pseudonym A-san, but now I use the pseudonym "Miki.")

 Please read this as well.

 We appreciate your continued support.

I submitted the document.

Our lawsuit submitted supplementary documents to the Osaka High Court on July 31, 2025.

The document submitted this time supplements the arguments on points that were not completed in time when the appeal statement was prepared.

Under the non-marriage requirements of the Special Act, if one were to try to resolve the various difficulties caused by the discrepancy between one's gender in social life and one's legal gender status, the appellant and his wife would have no choice but to choose divorce in exchange for a change in legal gender status.

For two people who have already been living together as husband and wife for many years, they will lose the legal, social, and psychological benefits that they had gained through legal marriage.

The defense team argues that the law's imposition of such disadvantages on the plaintiffs violates their constitutional guarantees of human rights and is therefore unjustifiable.

In order to better enable the judge to understand our argument, we have detailed in previous written documents the disadvantages that would result from being forced to divorce.

The supplementary document further elaborates on the seriousness of the disadvantages, stating that "In recent years, there have been efforts to protect the rights and interests of same-sex couples who cannot legally marry through local government partnership systems and corporate initiatives, but even if these initiatives are utilized, the disadvantages that arise from being excluded from the legal marriage system cannot be eliminated or mitigated."

The document can be read at Litigation Documents > High Court > Arguments.

■ Future progress

At the earliest, you will be able to present your case and seek a court decision.

This trial is a family court appeal case, and unlike a lawsuit, the date for the conclusion (the date when the parties finish presenting their arguments and evidence) and the date for the verdict to be pronounced are not predetermined.

Due to the nature of the procedure, the legal team representing you is still feeling their way around while communicating with the court, so it is difficult for us to give you a clear plan for the future.

However, we will keep you updated as we make any progress we can share with you.

We appreciate your continued attention and support.

Our lawsuit filed an appeal against the Kyoto Family Court's decision on April 1st, requesting a retrial at the Osaka High Court.

On April 15th, we submitted a document titled "Statement of Grounds for Appeal."

It is posted in the "High Court" category in the Litigation Materials tab (some details have been omitted to protect privacy).

This document outlines the reasons you are arguing for requesting a retrial.

We point out the errors in the Kyoto Family Court's decision and provide supplementary assertions regarding factual matters and legal interpretations in order to correct those errors.

The errors in the Kyoto Family Court's decision have been organized from three perspectives, as shown in the figure.

We have summarized the contents of the decision and the key points argued in the appeal statement for each case.

The green part on the left side of the diagram below shows the key points of the decision that pointed out the errors, and the right side shows the arguments in the appeal statement.

If you would like to know more, you can read the "Statement of Appeal" in the "High Court" category of the litigation documents tab.

The plaintiff Miki, her wife B, and the legal team will do our best to achieve a reversal victory in the Osaka High Court.

We appreciate your continued support.

We filed an appeal against the Kyoto Family Court's dismissal decision on April 1st.

An appeal is a procedure in which a person who is dissatisfied with the content of a decision made by the Kyoto Family Court requests a new decision at the High Court.

The next stage of the trial is at the Osaka High Court.

The defense team is currently preparing a document called the "Statement of Grounds for Appeal."

In this document, we will organize and explain to the Osaka High Court which aspects of the Kyoto Family Court's decision were incorrect and why.

After the written submission has been made, we will report it on CALL 4 and will make the document public after masking any parts that pertain to the privacy of Applicant A and his wife B.

The defense team is also considering seeking advice from constitutional and civil law scholars.

If you ask a scholar to write an opinion, the cost can be a hurdle.

If you are able to support us through a donation, we would appreciate your support.

We appreciate your continued support.

The Kyoto Family Court's decision was issued on March 19, 2025.

The conclusion was to deny the applicant's request.

Regarding the non-marriage requirements of the Special Act, the court ruled that "it cannot be immediately interpreted as invalid as violating Articles 13 and 24 of the Constitution," and therefore will not approve the change in gender status of applicants who do not meet the non-marriage requirements.

There were also substantial certifications in the areas that were recognized as prerequisites for constitutional judgment.

This is because the court carefully assessed the applicant's living situation and the disadvantages he was suffering, and concluded that he was faced with a choice between two options.

Regarding the freedom and right to marry (including the freedom and right to maintain a marriage), it has been shown that there is room to recognize it as a human right guaranteed by Article 13 and Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

These points were not included when the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the non-marriage requirement was constitutional, so they can also be seen as a step forward that should be appreciated.

On the other hand, despite saying that, the description of the constitutional judgment was immature and disappointing.

The court concluded that the legislature has legislative discretion in establishing the marriage system, and that the non-marriage requirement is intended to be consistent with the fact that same-sex marriage is not recognized, and therefore the law does not immediately violate the Constitution and is therefore invalid.

This is despite the fact that numerous court decisions have demonstrated that the inability of same-sex couples to use the institution of marriage (or the absence of any system for them to receive protection as a family) is a violation of the legislature's discretion (a violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution) and guarantees the freedom of marriage to all.

This can only be described as an unjust constitutional judgment that erroneously evaluates legislative discretion.

For further details, please see the decision and the comments from the legal team and the applicant, which are posted in the "Case Files" tab.

(This was hastily prepared to provide the media with a minimum explanation after the decision was made, so the legal team may add their own views at a later date.)

We will appeal this decision and our case will next be heard at the Osaka High Court.

We will do our best to overturn unjust constitutional decisions while taking advantage of the positive aspects that have been presented as the premise for constitutional decisions.

We would appreciate your continued support in the future.

The family court will reach a decision on these cases in March 2025.

This is the court's decision, which is equivalent to a judgment in a lawsuit.

The applicant is seeking a ruling to "change his or her legal gender status from male to female," and the court will make a decision on whether to grant this.

As stated in the progress report in January 2025, at the hearing date the judge explained that "a decision is expected to be made within this fiscal year."

Due to the nature of the procedure, the specific date and time when a decision will be made is not announced in advance, so the applicant and his/her legal team only have knowledge to the extent stated above.

Once a decision has been made, we will report it through the media as appropriate, and we also plan to post a masked version of the decision on CALL4.

Please pay attention.

Report on hearing dates

Date and time: January 21, 2025 (Tuesday) from 15:00

Location: Kyoto Family Court

Judges: Judge Akiko Nakamura, Judge Aya Kobayashi, and Judge Yuto Sasaki

Contents:

■ Investigation of the facts concerning the applicant A

The judge asked the plaintiff, Mr. A, questions about the facts of the case, and Mr. A explained the facts directly to the judge in his own words.

The outline is as follows:

1) Living conditions until gender transition (until you began to live your daily social life as a woman). Reasons for not attempting gender transition or changing your legal gender status during that time

→ Ms. A explained that because she had been a well-behaved child since she was young, she had lived her life trying to adapt to the adults around her treating her as a "boy." As she continued to live this way, she felt that she could not imagine gender transition or changing her legal gender status as "an option available to her."

Regarding the conflict he felt while identifying with women but behaving as a man in society, he explained that he thought of himself as a "man with a woman inside him" and that "being a woman is a part of a parallel world that isn't real."

② Relationship with wife B and desire to maintain marriage

→ Ms. A explained that even after her gender transition, she and Ms. B will continue to live as a married couple, and that they will be indispensable to each other as a family. She expressed her feelings that "I want us to continue to walk through life together, influencing each other."

Regarding their desire to maintain their marriage, they said, "There is a sense of security knowing that the legal system is looking out for us . " "Marriage is an important factor in seeking happiness in life." "Who to marry, when to marry, and whether to continue it are decisions that should be made for oneself, and it should not be something that the government controls and forces people to make choices about." "We want to maintain the life we've already had as a family for many years."

3) What is the most difficult thing about being legally identified as male?

→Mr. A explained that when he was going through a procedure and had to submit identification that had a gender field filled in, he felt anxious the moment he handed the document over, thinking, "I might be told something," or "They might mistake me for someone else's resident registration and ask me to explain."

She also pointed out that there are situations in which people may have to unwillingly explain sensitive, private information about being living as a gender different from the one assigned to them at birth, and explained that changing one's gender status so that their description matches their social life would be beneficial in protecting their privacy and would also prevent confusion for third parties involved in the process.

■ Investigation of the facts concerning wife B

The judge asked the plaintiff's wife, Ms. B, about the facts of the case, and Ms. B explained the matter directly to the judge in her own words.

The outline is as follows:

① How I felt when A came out to me before we started dating

→ Mr. B honestly recalled that when he came out to her by saying, "I sometimes transform into a woman," he understood that the use of the word "transform" instead of "disguise" conveyed the nuance that he was not just changing his appearance to be female, but also his personality, and that he found the choice of words interesting.

She then explained that she was intrigued by the story of someone who had experienced things she had never experienced, and that she decided to date and marry him because she saw him as "a man who had that kind of side to him."

② Did you have any confusion about A's gender transition after marriage? What was the relationship like between the two of you after A's gender transition?

→ B answered, "I didn't know what it was like for someone to change gender midway through life, so I was confused by the new experience." She explained that she was not only confused by the change in her own feelings toward A, but also by the fear of how society would perceive her, "How would the people around us perceive A and us? Would society accept us?"

Mr. B stated that it is not that he has stopped loving Mr. A just because he is no longer male, but that he still loves Mr. A because they have spent time together as husband and wife, and that he wants to continue their marriage.

B then explained that it was difficult for A to be forced to choose between continuing the marriage or changing her gender status under the non-marriage requirements of the Special Act.

■ Confirmation regarding the progress of procedures

The legal team announced their intention to submit additional documentary evidence, including the Tokyo High Court and Fukuoka High Court rulings in the "Freedom of Marriage for All" lawsuit . Both rulings were handed down after the filing of this case, and determined that the legal prohibition against same-sex couples from using the marriage system is unconstitutional.

The judge then explained that he expected to issue a "decision" (arbitration) within this fiscal year.

■ Future Schedule

In family court proceedings seeking a change of gender status, there is no clear advance notice of when the court will issue a "decision" (the court's conclusion on the petition).

The judge explained that he expects to make a decision within this fiscal year, so we expect a decision will probably be made sometime in March of this year.

Once the court decision has been issued and the legal team has confirmed its contents, we will report it to you through media reports and a report on CALL4. The decision will be posted in the "Court Documents" tab on CALL4 after masking.

Please pay close attention.

The hearing date is scheduled for the afternoon of January 21, 2025.

A hearing is a procedure in which the judge directly hears the complainant and other parties involved.

In our trial, three judges will directly hear the arguments of the plaintiff, Mr. A, and his wife, Ms. B.

I plan to speak in the form of answering questions from the judge, so I don't know what I will talk about.

The defense team hopes that this will be an opportunity for the judge to fully understand that Ms. A is already living as a woman, and that Ms. A and Ms. B have built a harmonious relationship and each wishes to maintain their marriage.

Domestic relations hearings seeking a change of gender status are confidential procedures, so you cannot observe the hearing sessions.

After the hearing, we would like to inform you of the details of the hearing to the extent possible through reports on CALL4 and press conferences.

We appreciate your continued support and attention.

We received a call from the Kyoto Family Court informing us that the number of judges in charge of our trial has been changed from one (sole judge) to three (council judge).

The fact that the court has three judges in charge can be seen as an indication of the intention to carefully consider the arguments of the applicants who are disputing the unconstitutionality of the non-marriage requirement.

The defense team has requested the court to set a hearing date where the judge will hear directly from the plaintiff, Mr. A, and his wife, Ms. B.

We are currently waiting for the court to schedule the hearing, and will notify you once we have a date for when it will take place.

The hearing date itself will be a confidential procedure, but if it is held, we plan to report to the public after the hearing date, perhaps by holding a press conference.

We appreciate your continued support and attention to our lawsuit!

In October 2024, our legal defense team submitted three supplementary briefs to the Kyoto Family Court.

[Introduction to documents to be submitted]

Supplementary Document 1: Domestic and international trends regarding legal protection for same-sex couples

Supplementary Document 2: The current situation surrounding transgender people

Supplementary Note 3: International Human Rights Situation

In both cases, the main points were laid out in the petition, but we were able to take the time to research and present more detailed arguments.

Supplementary Document 2, which describes the current situation surrounding transgender people, also quoted comments from people who donated through CALL4. (The quoted parts have been omitted when publishing CALL4.)

We informed the court that there are other people in Japanese society who, like Applicant A, are facing difficulties due to the non-marriage requirement, and that they are looking forward to this trial.

Thank you again for your help.

Both documents have been edited and omitted as appropriate for public viewing and are posted on CALL4.

You can read it under the Litigation Files tab.

[Future progress]

The defense team is asking the court to set a hearing date where the judge will hear the plaintiff A and his wife B directly.

If a hearing date is set, the hearing itself will be closed to the public and cannot be observed, but we will report the details to everyone at a press conference and through reports on the CALL4 progress page.

We appreciate your continued support for our lawsuit.