In response to the recent Supreme Court ruling (Supreme Court Third Petty Bench, March 27, 2026), we hereby publish the thoughts of the plaintiff (appellant), Haruo Ikegami, regarding the Supreme Court ruling, as well as a message to his supporters, and a report and message from Chief Attorney Noriaki Nakamura, representing the legal team (Noriaki Nakamura, Masaaki Ito, and Yusuke Taira) in the lawsuit to "recover the hunting rifles of brown bear hunters."

On behalf of the plaintiffs and legal team, we express our heartfelt gratitude to everyone who watched over and encouraged us throughout our struggle. Thank you so much.

A message from the plaintiff (appellant), Haruo Ikegami, regarding his thoughts on the Supreme Court ruling and to his supporters.

Hands clasped in prayer

Thank you very much for your support through crowdfunding.

The Supreme Court ruling was a constitutional judgment that was sympathetic to Hunter. This is also thanks to the efforts of the formidable legal team of lawyers Ito, Taira, and Nakamura.

The judgment's main clause, "The lower court's judgment is dismissed," completely shattered the High Court's nonsense, which was entirely contrary to the facts.

The High Court ruling has now vanished from existence.

You can watch the entire press conference.

If you could spread the word to people who are not yet aware of this series of lawsuits, it would help to expand the circle of support.

The Supreme Court's ruling is a remarkable unanimous decision by five justices, and I would like to share this historic outcome with all of our supporters.

worship again

Haruo Ikegami

[Announcement] Regarding the Supreme Court's reversal of the decision in the Sunagawa case

1. Introduction

A reversal of fortune and a victory!

Hunter is expected to be able to retrieve his rifle for the first time in about eight years.

On March 27, 2026, in a lawsuit (which we will refer to as the Sunagawa case) seeking the annulment of the revocation of a hunter's license in Sunagawa City, the Supreme Court overturned the Sapporo High Court's ruling and dismissed Hokkaido's appeal. As a result, the revocation of Mr. Ikegami's hunter's license will be overturned.

Once again, I, Nakamura, would like to respectfully offer my greetings on behalf of the legal team.

2. A long battle that began with a bond with my master

The plaintiff in this case, Haruo Ikegami, is also my hunting mentor. My encounter with Mr. Ikegami at a gun shop led me to join the Sunagawa Hunting Association, where he serves as branch manager. This connection led to our collaboration on this case, starting with the preparation of the opinion statement for the criminal case at home, then the hearing procedures in the administrative disposition process, the administrative appeal after the revocation of the hunting permit, and finally this lawsuit, over a period of approximately eight years.

We won the first trial at the Sapporo District Court. Our joy at having "shown justice to the administration" was short-lived, however, as the appeal trial (Sapporo High Court) turned the tables and we were forced into an extremely tough battle. I visited the site many times, repeatedly remeasured, and continued to argue about the inconsistencies in the on-site investigation report, but the judges of the High Court were skeptical of Mr. Ikegami's claims from the beginning and refused to listen to our arguments. The shock and despair I felt when we were given a reversal of the verdict that seemed to disregard the facts, and especially when I heard that the court had acknowledged that a ricochet had occurred, is beyond words.

3. Formation of the defense team and the battle in the Supreme Court

I was in the lonely hell of "losing a case I should have won," when the two comrades who have now joined the legal team extended a helping hand.

Attorney Masaaki Ito of the Mie Prefectural Bar Association, drawing on his own experience as a hunter and his firsthand knowledge of the field, offered to represent me pro bono, even though we had never met. Furthermore, Attorney Yusuke Taira, an expert in administrative law, readily agreed to join my legal team, again pro bono, after providing commentary on my first-instance victory.

This victory, achieved through a reversal of fortune, would not have been possible without the combined efforts of lawyer Ito, a practitioner with intimate knowledge of the realities on the ground, and lawyer Taira, a researcher with a keen understanding of legal principles.

It was something I could never have accomplished on my own, especially after being devastated by the defeat in the appeals court.

4. The Social Significance of This Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a profound and weighty ruling that not only addressed the objectives of the Firearms and Swords Control Law, but also considered the safety of those involved in pest control, the pest control sites themselves, and even the safety of residents who fear damage caused by wild animals.

The Supreme Court ruled that, although a ricochet occurred due to Mr. Ikegami's shooting, no concrete physical danger was caused by the act of shooting, and that revoking a gun permit in a case like this, where a shooting occurs while engaged in public service activities, would have a chilling effect on hunters performing their duties. Therefore, the court determined that the Public Safety Commission's decision was an "abuse of discretionary power."

This is not only a relief for Mr. Ikegami personally, but also an extremely significant step towards enabling hunters to work without fear of unfair treatment at pest control sites across the country.

The fact that the bullet ricocheted was acknowledged is certainly unwelcome to Mr. Ikegami personally (under the system, the Supreme Court is bound by the factual findings of the appellate court and cannot contest them).

However, with this ruling, even if a ricochet occurs in the future, the gun possession permit will not be formally revoked based solely on that fact. Instead, the decision on whether or not to revoke the permit will be made after considering the social interest.

The Sunagawa Incident ruling is a socially significant judgment that prevents easy discretionary decisions by administrative agencies, and I believe it will serve as a lasting standard for determining whether discretionary power has been exceeded or abused.

5. Once again, thank you all.

As mentioned above, I felt terrible about having to ask Professor Ito and Professor Taira to do their work for free because I got involved without setting any fees.

Thanks to being introduced to CALL4, a crowdfunding platform specializing in supporting public interest lawsuits, I was able to launch my own crowdfunding campaign.

Thankfully, our first goal, which was to secure funds for travel and accommodation expenses, was achieved very quickly. Our second goal has also reached 89% of the target amount as of March 31st, and we continue to receive support even after the Supreme Court ruling.

As the head of the legal team, I am relieved that we did not end up forcing lawyers Ito and Taira to provide their services without compensation.

On behalf of the entire legal team, we express our heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has watched over and encouraged our struggle over the years.

Defense team for the Sunagawa case (Noriaki Nakamura, Masaaki Ito, Yusuke Taira)

Chief of the defense team: Noriaki Nakamura

Statement following the reversal of the previous ruling and subsequent self-judgment (preliminary version)

March 27, 2020

Appellant: Haruo Ikegami

Appellant's legal counsel: Attorney Noriaki Nakamura

Attorney Masaaki Ito　　　

Attorney Yusuke Taira　

Today, the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court issued a ruling overturning the Hokkaido Public Safety Commission's decision to revoke a hunting rifle possession permit (hereinafter referred to as "the decision in question").

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ruling rather than remand the case has confirmed Mr. Ikegami's complete victory. More than seven years have passed since Mr. Ikegami's rifle was confiscated, and the fact that the possibility of him getting it back has increased is something the legal team would like to commend.

This case involves a hunter who was engaged in a dangerous public service activity—the extermination of brown bears, which are considered harmful wildlife—and whose act of firing a gun was the issue. Despite the fact that the police officers on the scene did not believe there was anything wrong with the firing, and despite the fact that the criminal case (violation of the Firearms and Swords Control Law and violation of the Wildlife Protection and Management Law) was dismissed, the Hokkaido Public Safety Commission, which was not present at the scene, issued an administrative order revoking Mr. Ikegami's hunting rifle permit, making it an extremely unusual case.

Fortunately, the first instance judgment, while stating that it was irrelevant to the issue at hand, examined the co-hunter's testimony in detail in light of the facts of the case and denied its credibility. However, the Sapporo High Court, without mentioning the credibility of the co-hunter's testimony at all, recognized the fact of the ricochet and upheld the Public Safety Commission's decision, overturning the first instance judgment. I felt not the slightest consideration for the fact that the person was engaged in public service activities in the Sapporo High Court's judgment.

The Sapporo High Court's excessive emphasis on the danger of ricochets has caused widespread anxiety among hunters engaged in pest control. The High Court ruling has also had a significant negative impact on the guidelines for the newly established emergency hunting system, which was created to protect hunters from the risk of punishment.

Today, the Supreme Court ruling stated that, as stated by the appellant in their petition for acceptance of appeal, in light of the intent of the Special Measures Act for Preventing Damage from Wildlife, which aims to prevent damage to the lives, bodies, property, or living environment of residents and those engaged in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, the court can consider in its discretionary judgment the circumstances that would cause a situation inconsistent with the intent of the Special Measures Act if the act of firing a hunting rifle was carried out by a member of a wildlife damage control team as defined in the said Act, and was triggered by a request for deployment, in which case revoking the hunting rifle license would likely lead to a situation inconsistent with the intent of the Special Measures Act.

Furthermore, considering that Mr. Ikegami's act of firing his gun was in response to a request from the city and served the public interest, the court stated that, taking the above circumstances into consideration, the revocation of his hunting rifle permit was illegal due to an abuse of discretionary power.

Today's Supreme Court ruling completely shatters the unjust logic of the Sapporo High Court ruling.

With the Supreme Court's ruling that the revocation of the hunting license in this case constituted an abuse and exceeding of discretionary power, we hope this will help hunters feel more secure in their work of controlling harmful wildlife.

The Hokkaido Public Safety Commission and the Hokkaido Prefectural Police should take this reversal of the verdict seriously, acknowledge their mistakes, offer a deep apology to Mr. Ikegami, and promptly renew his gun permit.

An oral argument hearing was held at the Supreme Court's Third Petty Bench from 3:00 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. on Friday, February 27, 2026.

After the presiding judge gave an explanation of the outline of the case, the appellant (plaintiff) presented his petition for acceptance of final appeal, and the appellee (defendant) presented his answer. The presiding judge also clarified that although the appellant's written argument, which contained counterarguments to the appellee's answer, was not considered an official statement, the Supreme Court justices had confirmed its contents.

Afterwards, the appellant himself, his attorney (head of the defense team, Attorney Nakamura), and the attorney representing the respondent each made statements.

In addition, the presiding judge and the other judges did not make any requests for clarification (questions) to the parties involved.

The Supreme Court's ruling date has been set for Friday, March 27, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.

In this case, where the petition for acceptance of appeal has been granted and a hearing date has been set, there is a possibility that the unreasonable original judgment (Sapporo High Court judgment) will be "overturned."

We hope you will come to the Supreme Court to observe the proceedings.

Thank you all for your interest in the "Lawsuit to Challenge the Unreasonable Gun License Revocation of Bear Hunter in Hokkaido" (this case).

We launched our crowdfunding campaign (the First Challenge) on December 22, 2025, and by December 27 we were able to reach our initial target of 1,000,000 yen. We are deeply grateful for the warm and generous support we have received from so many of you. Thank you very much.

In the First Challenge, we primarily sought donations to cover necessary expenses such as travel costs for the parties involved and their attorneys, as well as investigation-related expenses. We have now launched a Second Challenge, setting a new crowdfunding target of 3,000,000 yen. Donations raised in this Second Challenge will be used to cover attorneys’ fees (for three attorneys), as well as to fund reporting sessions and public meetings to be held after the Supreme Court judgment or once the judgment becomes final.

While the legal team is seeking a complete resolution at the Supreme Court through a reversal with final judgment, if the Court were instead to issue a reversal and remand the case back to the High Court, the funds may also be used to cover litigation expenses for the remand proceedings, including travel costs.

In this case, it has now been decided that oral arguments will be held at the Supreme Court in February of next year. As a result, this matter is no longer merely an issue concerning Sunagawa City in Hokkaido, but one that will affect local governments nationwide. We believe it will have an impact not only on administrative practices in the field, but also on legislative policy. For these reasons, the legal team considers this case to be of significant importance as a public interest lawsuit.

We would be grateful if you could recognize the importance of the attorneys’ work in this case, and if you are able, we would sincerely appreciate your support through a donation.

The Supreme Court (Third Petty Bench) has now issued a decision to accept the appeal and to commence proceedings on December 22, 2025.
With the petition for acceptance of appeal granted and a hearing date set, there is a possibility that the unreasonable Sapporo High Court ruling will be overturned.

The Supreme Court hearing date has been set for February 27, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.
We hope you will come to the Supreme Court to observe the proceedings.

The issue at issue is whether the Sapporo High Court's ruling (original ruling) contained an error in its interpretation of the law (Article 30 of the Administrative Litigation Act), or whether the original ruling contradicted (violated) the Supreme Court's precedents regarding the same article. In the petition for acceptance of final appeal, the appellant (plaintiff) argued that the original ruling erred in its judgment framework regarding whether or not there was an abuse of discretion under Article 30 of the Administrative Litigation Act, that the original ruling was illegal in its misinterpretation of the laws related to the disposition in question, and that the original ruling also violated the above-mentioned Supreme Court precedents.

More than seven years have passed since the appellant (plaintiff), Mr. Ikegami, had his rifle confiscated under provisional seizure. The trial cannot be prolonged any further. The appellant's legal team intends to ask the Supreme Court to settle the case as soon as possible by reversing the decision and remanding, rather than by reversing the decision.

We appreciate your continued support for this lawsuit.