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.

We filed our lawsuit on July 16, 2024, which marks the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Act on Special Cases for the Treatment of Gender Status of Persons with Gender Identity Disorder (Special Cases Act).

Petition

We filed a petition with the Kyoto Family Court requesting a ruling on change of gender status.

We have submitted a petition outlining our claims and ample evidence to support them.

[Procedure summary]

What to ask for

We are requesting a ruling that "the applicant's gender be changed from male to female."

There is no other party. This is a confidential proceeding.

・Points of argument

We will argue that the requirement in Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Special Measures Act, which states that "the person must not currently be married," is unconstitutional and invalid.

・Future progress

The applicant's representative plans to submit supplementary documents in the future.

After that, you can ask the court to schedule a "hearing date" where a judge will hear from you in person. It's up to the court to decide whether or not to do so.

If there is any progress that can be reported, we will update the "Progress" tab in CALL 4 and report it to you.

Press conference held

After filing the petition, a press conference was held in Kyoto City.

【Speakers】

- Applicant: Mr. A, Applicant's wife: Ms. B

・Representative lawyers (from left): Akio Naka, Kaori Mukai, Yoko Mizutani, Ayako Kotobuki, Hirotaka Honda

Kuma, the head of the legal team, and Usaburo, who are supporting this trial, also took the stage.

[Significance of this trial explained at the press conference]

・Protect the daily life of petitioner A, who is already a woman, and the daily life of the couple A and B, who are already living together as a married couple. (Resolve the everyday problems caused by the discrepancy between the actual living conditions and the legal treatment. Eliminate the mental pain of being forced to make the harsh choice of divorcing B in order to resolve the problems.)

By sending their message to society and fighting the lawsuit, they hope to also help resolve the human rights violations suffered by other "married couples in which one partner is transgender" in the same situation.

- By raising the issue of the human rights violation of the non-marriage requirement established for the purpose of "preventing same-sex marriage," we will deepen social awareness of the human rights violation caused by same-sex couples not being able to legally marry, and help achieve marriage equality (same-sex marriage).

- By filing the petition today, which marks the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Act on Special Cases in the Treatment of Gender Status of Persons with Gender Identity Disorder (Special Cases Act), we will raise social awareness of the human rights violations of the entire requirements of the Special Cases Act.

To everyone who has been paying attention and supporting us

We are grateful for the many messages of support we have received since the news of our lawsuit was published.

We are particularly heartened by the voices of hope we have received from transgender people who, like the plaintiff A, are unable to change their gender status due to the barrier of not being married.

We appreciate your continued support.