◎The lawsuit was filed to the Osaka District Court on December 21, 2022 .

◎ First oral argument date: May 26, 2023

 The defendant submitted a document (including exhibits) in response to the complaint.

 ◎ July 14, 2023: Second oral argument date

 The plaintiff submitted the preparatory document (1) , which is a rebuttal to the defendant's reply.

 ◎July 24, 2023

 The plaintiff submitted the preparatory document (2) . This is a document arguing that the national government is responsible for the Setagaya Ward Office's refusal to accept the notification of loss of Japanese nationality submitted by the plaintiff.

 ◎Third oral argument date: September 29, 2023

 The defendant submitted the first preparatory brief . This is a counterargument to the plaintiff's preparatory document (1) and (2). It argues that the national government is not responsible even if Setagaya Ward rejects the notification of loss of nationality submitted by the plaintiff.

 ◎ 4th oral argument date: November 22, 2023

 The plaintiff submitted the preparatory document (3) , which is a rebuttal to the defendant's the first preparatory document.

 ◎5th oral argument date: December 22, 2023

 The plaintiff submitted the preparatory document (4) . This is a document that summarizes and explains the government's responsibility.

 February 20, 2024

 The plaintiff submitted a notice of lawsuit to Setagaya Ward .

 ◎ 6th oral argument date: February 28, 2024

 The defendant submitted the second preparatory document.

 The court reported that it had sent a notice of lawsuit to Setagaya Ward.

 ◎7th oral argument date: April 19, 2024

 The plaintiff has submitted the preparatory document (5) .

 It points out the errors in the September 2023 First Petty Bench decision of the Supreme Court and the December 2023 Fukuoka District Court decision, in lawsuits which challenges the constitutionality of Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Law, and argues that the September 2023 First Petty Bench decision of the Supreme Court cannot be upheld in the future due to the Supreme Court Grand Bench decision the following month. New information on international situations, etc. was also provided.

 It is essential for the plaintiff to know the specific reasons behind the September 2023 decision of the First Petty Bench of the Supreme Court in order to properly present her claims. However, the specific reasons are unclear.

 Therefore, the  plaintiff submitted a document requesting the Supreme Court to send the "Researcher's report" that was the basis for the decision. This request was rejected. Good grief!

 The plaintiff submitted a petition for investigation to Setagaya Ward .

 The petition calls for an investigation, because  there is a suspicion that, when the plaintiff went to the Setagaya Ward office to file a notification of loss of nationality, the ward consulted with the national government on how to respond.

 The state was asked to conduct its own investigation into this matter.

 The next oral argument date will be held

 on Friday, June 14, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. (Osaka District Court, Courtroom 1007) .

 Depending on the results of the government's investigation, preparations for the examination of evidence (witness examination and examination of the plaintiff herself) will begin.

This is the material (expanded version) of the report meeting following the judgment in Litigation 1.

20231209 Judgment date report meeting materials (after the second round) CALL4-2.pdf

 We have added comments received at the report meeting and supplemented the explanation.

 (Comments from the defense team following the judgement) 

The decision is commendable in that it recognizes the relationship between nationality and identity, and that it is necessary to respect as much as possible the wishes of the individual regarding the loss of Japanese nationality.

The district and high courts in the Tokyo lawsuit did not hesitate to take away Japanese nationality by law, claiming that it is merely a status conferred by law. This is an idea from an era when Japanese nationality indicated the status of "subjects.

The Fukuoka District Court did not think in such a way and tried to grasp the significance of Japanese nationality from the starting point of the Japanese Constitution. This is a wonderful and significant step forward.

However, it still does not go far enough.

For example, the failure to recognize the constitutional guarantee of the right not to be deprived of Japanese nationality against one's will is a serious problem.

Article 22(2) of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to renounce one's nationality. It guarantees a person's right to choose where to spend his/her life, a concept that is connected to Article 13 of the Constitution, which guarantees the "right to the pursuit of happiness. It is a clear contradiction that "one can freely renounce one's Japanese nationality" but "the right to be a Japanese citizen is not guaranteed under the Constitution.

In addition, while "it is necessary to respect the will of the individual as much as possible with regard to the loss of Japanese nationality," the conclusion that "the individual had the opportunity to choose between Japanese and foreign nationality when applying for and acquiring foreign nationality because of the provision of Article 11, paragraph 1" ultimately shows no respect for the individual's will.

In fact, since the plaintiff was unaware of Article 11, Section 1, and did not know that she would lose her Japanese citizenship if she acquired U.S. citizenship, it cannot be said that she had an "opportunity to choose between U.S. and Japanese citizenship. In this respect, there is a major inconsistency in the judgment.

Another problem with the Fukuoka District Court decision is that, although it goes much further than the decisions of the Tokyo District Court and the Tokyo High Court, it follows the law and the status quo with regard to the anguish and plight of overseas residents and the disconnect between the law and reality.

There are a number of other issues that still need to be defeated, and we are determined to make a strong case to the Court of Appeals to further advance our arguments.

The Fukuoka District Court decision, despite some problems with its logic and conclusions, was an advance not only in the discussion of Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Law, but also in the discussion of multiple nationalities. We hope to use the advancements made in the ruling as a bridgehead for a reversal of the decision in the appeals court.

We appreciate your continued attention and support for the lawsuit.

The plaintiff has submitted a preliminary document (1) .

 This is a written rebuttal to the defendant's brief (1).

 The characteristics of the plaintiff's brief (1) are as follows:

 ① The main points of the plaintiff's claim are explained concisely by referring to the complaint;

 ② The contradictions and unreasonableness of the defendant's claims were brought to light and thoroughly investigated;

 The defendant has indicated his intention to submit a document attempting to refute the plaintiff's preliminary document (1).

 Once the defendant submits this document, both parties' legal arguments will be almost over.

 Therefore, the plaintiff's attorney indicated his intention to proceed with preparations for conducting the interrogation (preparing a written statement, etc.). We plan to submit a written statement at the earliest next time.

 The next date is Tuesday, February 6, 2024 from 11:00.

The materials of the first to third reporting sessions for Case 1 are as follows.

20220803 1st date report meeting materials.pdf

20221203 2nd date report meeting materials (2nd edition).pdf

20230313 3rd due date report meeting materials (2nd edition).pdf

The defendant made a statement in the preliminary document (1).

 The plaintiff had submitted a document requesting an explanation of the contents of the defendant's preliminary document (1), and the defendant's attorney provided an oral explanation regarding this.

 Plaintiff's attorney asked further questions about Defendant's attorney's explanation.

 Based on the content of this questions and answers session, the plaintiff will submit a rebuttal to the defendant's preliminary document (1) on the next deadline (13:30 on November 21, 2023).

 The plaintiff filed brief (3). This is a counterargument against the country's preliminary documents 1 and 2.

 The plaintiff also submitted Exhibits A131 to A134 as evidence.

 Evidence Ko 131: March 10, 2015 Supreme Court 3rd Petty Bench Judgment/Commentary by Researcher

 Evidence Ko 132: Ken Ito, "Case Analysis of Appropriate Acquisition of Foreign Nationality" (July 2023 Hogaku Seminar)

 Evidence Ko 133: Atsushi Kondo "Article 15, Paragraph 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Prohibition of Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality" ("International Human Rights Law and Constitution: Human Rights in the Age of Multicultural Coexistence")

 Evidence Ko 134: Plaintiff's statement

 (Plaintiffs' statements and briefs (3) can be downlaoded from the litigation materials.)

 The country showed its intention not to object,

 The plaintiff made a statement on Evidence Ko 134.

 It happened to be a time when the plaintiff's family gathered in Fukuoka from the United States and other countries, so the statement was made in the presence of the plaintiff's family and friends.

 After the statements were made, the presiding judge closed the hearing and announced a date for handing down judgment.

 The judgment date is 13:10 on Wednesday, December 6, 2023.

 [Materials for the Zoom debriefing meeting after the deadline] 20230826 5th Debriefing Meeting Materials (Part 2).pdf

A statement of complaint and a brief reply of the state were made.

On the next date (October 2, 2023, 13:30), the government will submit a full-scale counterargument.

The country submitted a rebuttal document (preparatory document 2) to the document submitted by the plaintiff on the previous date.

The plaintiff also asked the court to examine the plaintiff herself and examine expert witnesses. It was decided not to implement either, but it was decided to implement the plaintiff's statement of opinion (Okay in the form of interrogation) on the next date. 

The evidence presented by the plaintiff are listed below.:

 Ko No. 121: Letter of Opinion, Tomomi Takasa (A part of the main points is summarized in "Article 11 , Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Act " (Hougakukan Constitutional Research Institute Opinion).)

 Ko No. 122: Reexamination of the ``Single Nationality Principle''-Acceptance of Dual Nationality in MACIMIDE Survey Results, Makoto Sugawara

 Ko No. 123: Results of a Survey on Acquisition of Nationality of the Country of Residence and Maintenance of Japanese Nationality by Japanese Living Abroad, Masumi Reed

 Ko No. 124: Constitution I Fundamental Rights 2nd Edition Shishido Tsunehisa, Matsumoto Kazuhiko et al.

 Takeda Satoko ed., "Reality of Civil Disobedience by Parties Concerning Nationality Law"

 Ko No. 125: Reality of civil disobedience over nationality law, Satoko Takeda

 Ko No. 126: Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Act and My Retirement Life: The Serious Impact on Life Due to Inaction in the Obligation of Disclosure, Shinichi Sakamoto

 Ko No. 127: Touching on the operation of the bankrupt "National Law" -- Concerned about the current situation where the rights that should be protected are hindered due to the disadvantages of the people --, Hiroaki Takamatsu

 Ko No. 128: proof Isn't it strange? Deprivation of Nationality Without Awareness: The Road to Lawsuit, Tomohiro Yoshida

 Ko No. 129: What I think about the unconstitutional lawsuit for deprivation of nationality -, A multinational person crossing the border as a Japanese-Brazil dual nationality AHM

 Ko No. 130: "Case Analysis on the Acquisition of Foreign Citizenship [Commentary on Judicial Precedents] -- Lawsuit for Unconstitutionality of Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Act" (Hogaku Seminar June 2023 issue), Kazuhiko Matsumoto

 On the next date (from 14:30 on August 21, 2023), we plan to submit a counterargument to the national brief 2, the plaintiff's statement of opinion, additional evidence, etc.

On May 2, 2023, we filed a complaint for Case 2.