Japan's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage in law is unconstitutional, a court finds
TOKYO — A Japanese high court on Friday ruled that Japan's refusal to legally recognize same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, the latest victory for same-sex couples and their supporters seeking equal rights.
Friday's decision by the Nagoya High Court, in central Japan, marks the ninth victory out of 10 rulings since the first group of plaintiffs filed lawsuits in 2019.
The decision was also the fourth high court ruling in a row to find the current government policy unconstitutional, after similar decisions in Tokyo , Fukuoka and Sapporo .
After a fifth court ruling expected later this month in Osaka, the Supreme Court is expected to handle all five appeals and make a decision.
The Nagoya court said Friday that not allowing same-sex couples the legal right to marry violates a constitutional guarantee of equality. The court also upheld the right to individual dignity and the essential equality of both sexes.
The current civil law, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, is discrimination based on sexual orientation and lacks rationality, the ruling said.
The government has argued that marriage under civil law does not cover same-sex couples and places importance on natural reproduction. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi told reporters after the ruling Friday that the government will monitor pending lawsuits and public opinion.
The plaintiffs and their lawyers say the overwhelming winning record of 9-1 in the courts is already enough and the government should quickly take action.
More than 30 plaintiffs have joined the lawsuits on marriage equality filed in five regions across Japan since 2019. They argue that civil law provisions barring same-sex marriage violate the Constitutional right to equality and freedom of marriage.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘No Kings' rallies set for Saturday in Bluffton
BLUFFTON, S.C. (WSAV) – Activists across the country are planning to make their voices heard again this weekend. 'No Kings' rallies are set to take place in nearly 1,400 cities including at least four in the Coastal Empire and Lowcountry. Their message, push back against what organizers call an abuse of power by the Trump administration. 'It's not a hate filled event, it's to make our voice heard,' Rita Conrad of Lowcountry Indivisible said. The advocacy group Lowcountry Indivisible has planned the 'No Kings' event in Bluffton Saturday. 'America fought a battle many, many, many years ago to end King rule in the country. It seems like almost every day there's something that the Trump administration is doing that is kingly,' Conrad said. 'And he's not a king. He is the President. An American President is obligated to follow the Constitution and the rule of law.' Since Trump took office there have been a variety of rallies in several Lowcountry towns and cities. Conrad said several hundred people have joined on with 'indivisible' to make their voices heard. 'We're concerned that he's not responding to rulings from the Supreme Court,' Conrad said. 'He's taking actions, and I don't think anybody believes that the American system is perfect. Even the immigration system, we need to make changes to improve it. And yes, deporting people who have committed crimes, you know, and are here illegally, I don't have a big problem with that. But it's the way they're being rounded up and without due process of law. And I just think that that's not what we are as a country, there are ways to make changes that aren't cruel and don't ruin people's lives.' While the California protests ended with national guard troops called in and some violence, that is not the goal of this rally according to Conrad. Families, kids and dogs are welcome. They have also added a food drive as well to help the people affected by cuts that came or are coming from Washington. 'Cutting health care and food stamps or SNAP benefits to a lot of people who really need help,' Conrad said. 'And the beneficiaries will be people who don't need help. And to me, it's sort of Trump's way of saying let them eat cake. So, our response is, no, not cake. We'll provide some solid food for people who need it.' The Bluffton demonstration will be in front of Beaufort County government building starting at 4 p.m. Saturday. Beaufort and Hilton Head will also be holding rallies on Saturday at noon. The Savannah event begins at 11 a.m. at Thomas Square Park. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Washington's Supreme Court slashes public defender caseload limits
(Photo by) The state Supreme Court on Monday responded to a 'crisis' in Washington's public defense system by slashing caseloads for those providing counsel to poor defendants facing criminal prosecutions. Justices unanimously agreed to set the new statewide standards, which call for public defenders to handle a maximum of 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases in a year, depending on one's primary area of practice. The current thresholds are 150 felonies and 400 misdemeanors. The group that represents Washington counties says the new standards are unattainable with the level of funding now available and due to a shortage of lawyers. Under the court's interim order, the new caseload limits take effect Jan. 1, 2026 and should be achieved 'as soon as reasonably possible' and no later than 10 years, Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote in the four-page order. 'The crisis in the provision of indigent criminal defense services throughout our state requires action now,' Stephens wrote for the majority. Monday's decision is a potential game-changer in the state's effort to shore up a beleaguered public defense system that struggles to provide timely, equitable and effective counsel. 'It's a bold move. I didn't expect justices to go this far,' said Larry Jefferson, director of the state's Office of Public Defense. Jefferson warned justices 18 months ago the system was on the 'verge of collapse' as cases piled up, trials backed up and over-stressed attorneys retired or resigned to work in higher-paying, less stressful jobs. He appealed to the justices for help. 'This is one of the first times that public defenders have been listened to,' Jefferson said. Some counties have had to release those accused of crimes due to the lack of available defense counsel. The ACLU of Washington sued Yakima County last year for failing to appoint attorneys for indigent people charged with crimes. Hiring more public defenders costs money. Cities and counties worry they also will need to amp up hiring of court staff and prosecutors to keep pace and that will be expensive. 'What they are describing here is impossible with our current budget constraints,' said Derek Young, executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties. 'There's not nearly enough workforce now. If we triple the demand for services, where will all these lawyers come from?' 'There is no timeline we can accommodate this absent the Legislature waking up' and providing greater financial support, he said. The new state budget provides $20 million for counties, he said, which is about 6% of their total public defense costs. Standards the state Supreme Court adopted in 2012 said a full-time public defense attorney or assigned counsel should have no more than 150 felony cases a year. In 2023, the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts and the RAND Justice Policy Program released the National Public Defense Workload Study. It concluded public defenders should handle far fewer cases. That year, Washington's high court asked the Washington State Bar Association to weigh in on whether the cap needed adjusting in light of the findings. The association responded in March 2024, recommending new maximums of 47 felony credits or 120 misdemeanor credits in a year, depending on the severity of the charges. The reduction would be phased in over three years. Under that approach, the cap for felony cases would be 120 in the first year, 90 in the second and 47 in the third. For misdemeanors, the limit would be 280 cases in the first year, dropping to 225 and then 120. As part of its proposal, the association assigned crimes credits based on seriousness and complexity of providing a legal defense. A motor vehicle theft was assigned one credit and a murder seven, for example. That means a lawyer could theoretically be assigned 47 vehicle theft or seven homicide cases in a year before hitting their limit. Such case weighting is 'permissible and encouraged' but not required, Stephens wrote for the court. If done, a local government should adopt and publish any policies and procedures underlying the use of such weighting, Stephens wrote. The Supreme Court started accepting public comment on the bar association's request to trim caseloads a year ago, while also holding public hearings and internal work sessions. In each hearing, prosecutors argued reducing caseloads would lead to filing of fewer cases to ensure no one's rights to counsel are violated. 'Without sufficient attorneys or without sufficient resources, it would lead to a de facto decriminalization and an increase in vigilantism,' Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in September. He added that 'way too many' people have had their cases dismissed or not filed because of a lack of public defenders. Supporters of reducing caseloads said in the hearings that the change is needed to stabilize the system. They contend that large caseloads and low pay are driving people out of public defense and deterring new lawyers from entering this line of legal work. And they, too, pointed to the problem in some counties where those accused of crimes, but unable to afford a lawyer, can wait long periods of time before they receive counsel. 'Public defense is in a downward spiral. We can fix this,' said Jason Schwarz, director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and chair of the Washington State Bar Association's Council on Public Defense in September. 'This will be expensive. Justice is not cheap.' The order issued Monday isn't the final word. New rules are needed to put the caseload figures in place. And the bar association made other recommendations on subjects like staffing and training that justices are still considering. But the justices wanted to put out caseload information because they knew local governments are putting together their budgets for next year, Stephens wrote in the order.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Americans are starting to learn who ‘Maryland father' Abrego Garcia really is
For a while, the favored moniker for Kilmar Abrego Garcia in the media was 'Maryland father.' Abrego Garcia was indeed living in Maryland and was indeed a father, but this wasn't what was most distinctive thing about him. There are hundreds of thousands of fathers living in the state who aren't illegal immigrants and don't have ties to criminal gangs. Abrego Garcia, of course, is the man who was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador despite a judge's order that he couldn't be deported there. Instead of quickly asking for Abrego Garcia to be sent back to the United States, the Trump administration dug in its heels and suffered repeated legal setbacks, including at the Supreme Court. Sensing political opportunity and appalled at the notion of someone living in the US being sent, based on no criminal charges, to perhaps the most inhumane prison in the Western Hemisphere, Democrats made Abrego Garcia a cause. They inevitably downplayed the drip-drip evidence that he was an unsympathetic character. It emerged that he had been picked up by local police in 2019 at a Home Depot years ago and the cops suspected that he and his associates were gang members. It emerged that his wife accused him of abusing her. It emerged that he'd been stopped in Tennessee in suspicious circumstances in 2022 with multiple men in the vehicle. Whether Abrego Garcia was a good guy or a reprobate, a member of MS-13 or of his church choir, had no bearing on whether he should have been imprisoned in El Salvador with our active support. The answer to that was 'no' regardless, but now that the Trump administration has brought him back to the United States and filed charges against him, the 'Maryland father' description has been exposed as ludicrously inapt. According to a Department of Justice indictment, Abrego Garcia routinely engaged in human smuggling, transporting illegal aliens within the United States on more than 100 occasions. The facts set out in the indictment regarding the Tennessee traffic stop are particularly damning. Abrego Garcia's story was that the men in his Suburban had been working construction in St. Louis for two weeks and he was bringing them back to Maryland. The men, all lacking identification, had no luggage or construction tools. The vehicle was outfitted with a makeshift third row for passengers in the back. All of which was suspicious enough. What's more, the indictment says, license-plate tracking data showed that the car hadn't been anywhere close to St. Louis in the past year. It had, however, been in the Houston, Texas, area, where the prosecutors say the illegal-alien passengers had been picked up. The administration will have to prove its charges in court, and if they have been exaggerated in the cause of nailing Abrego Garcia, that will presumably be exposed. The facts matter, and Abrego Garcia never should have been made into a mere symbol. The administration seemed to think keeping him in El Salvador somehow furthered the cause of immigration enforcement, but whether Abrego Garcia stayed there or came back to the United States wasn't going to materially affect deportation efforts one way or the other. For their part, Trump's critics — yet again — assumed because someone was targeted by the president, he or she must be a figure of righteousness. The fact of the matter is that Abrego Garcia never should have been in the United States in the first place. He came here illegally in 2012. Only after he was picked up by police in the aforementioned 2019 stop and put in deportation proceedings did he make a meritless asylum claim. An immigration judge nevertheless granted him a withholding of removal and Abrego Garcia was permitted to go about his business, which, according to the Justice Department, was smuggling other illegal immigrants. We'll learn more as the case proceeds, but we know enough already to conclude that this isn't a typical or commendable Marylander. Twitter: @RichLowry
