Disputed Verdict Sets Anti-Religious Precedent

Distinguished attorney spells out how disputed verdict in Japan’s Supreme Court paves the way for dissolution of religious organizations

Bitter Winter, the leading online magazine for human rights and religious freedom, published 10^th March 2025, a commentary titled “The Supreme Court and the Unification Church in Japan: Warrant for a ‘Religiocide’? Part 1”. The article was penned by Tatsuki Nakayama (中山達樹), author and distinguished Japanese attorney and business ethics expert. He is an outspoken critic of the Japanese government’s campaign against the large religious minority the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, formerly known as the Unification Church and still widely referred to as such.

According to the attorney, on 3^rd March 2025, Japan’s Supreme Court delivered a final ruling upholding a non-penal fine imposed on President Tomihiro Tanaka (田中富広) of the Family Federation. The fine was issued due to allegations that President Tanaka had not fully responded to government inquiries.

Nakayama points out that a key aspect of this ruling was the Supreme Court’s affirmation that civil wrongdoings committed by the Family Federation could constitute a “violation of laws and regulations” as specified in Article 81 of the Religious Corporations Act (RCA), which outlines the conditions under which a religious organization can be dissolved.

This interpretation holds significant implications for the ongoing case filed by the Japanese government with the Tokyo District Court, seeking the dissolution of the Family Federation. Until now, Japanese legal precedent had excluded civil wrongdoings from qualifying as grounds for dissolving religious organizations. Furthermore, this decision appears to be unprecedented among democratic nations, as no other democracy has permitted such an extensive legal basis for dissolving religious groups.

Tatsuki Nakayama reports that the Supreme Court’s decision aligns with a broader national movement led by the “anti-cult” organization National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales, as well as certain journalists, including Eito Suzuki (鈴木エイト). This campaign gained momentum following the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (安倍 晋三, 1954–2022) by an individual who claimed he wanted to punish Abe for his perceived ties to the Family Federation.

Nakayama suggests that a close examination of the Supreme Court ruling suggests it paves the way for the dissolution of the Family Federation. Several concerning signs emerge from the decision.

Article 81 of the Religious Corporations Act (RCA) permits the dissolution of a religious corporation if it engages in actions that: (a) clearly cause substantial harm to public welfare; or (b) violate laws and regulations.

According to Nakayama, the Supreme Court, in its ruling, addressed only the interpretation of “laws and regulations” (criterion b) and did not evaluate whether the Family Federation’s actions harmed public welfare (criterion a). The assessment of this aspect remains pending in the Tokyo District Court, where Presiding Judge Kenya Suzuki (鈴木 健也) oversees the case.

Tatsuki Nakayama claims that this ruling signals a significant erosion of respect for religious freedom in Japan. From a legal and technical perspective, dissolving a religious organization does not directly prohibit believers from practicing their faith, as they can continue their religious activities privately, even in the absence of an official religious entity. However, the dissolution process results in the loss of all organizational assets, which has profound practical implications for religious adherents.

Past judicial precedents in Japan have, as Nakayama emphasizes, carefully considered these implications. For instance, in 1996, the Supreme Court ruled to dissolve Aum Shinrikyo, the religious group responsible for killing 29 people in a series of attacks.

Despite the severity of Aum Shinrikyo’s crimes, the court at the time acknowledged the impact that dissolution could have on the religious freedom of its followers. The ruling explicitly recognized that without access to religious facilities and assets, believers might encounter difficulties in practicing their faith. It emphasized the need to carefully weigh the constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom against the necessity of imposing such a restriction.

Similarly, on 26^th March 2024, the Tokyo District Court ruled in a non-penal fine case against the Family Federation. In doing so, the court closely followed the reasoning of the 1996 Aum Shinrikyo case. The District Court stated that given the constitutional importance of religious freedom, any decision to dissolve a religious organization should be made with caution, considering whether such an extreme measure is truly necessary and unavoidable.

The Bitter Winter article mentions that prior cases thus have demonstrated a conscientious approach to protecting religious freedom. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling on 3^rd March 2025, departed from this tradition. The court stated that “a dissolution order shall have the effect of forfeiting the juridical personality of a religious corporation and shall not have any legal effect that prohibits or restricts the religious acts of a believer.” This position is alarming, as it disregards the very real consequences that dissolution has on the ability of religious followers to continue their practices in an organized and meaningful way.

Historically, Japan’s legal system has upheld strong protections for religious freedom, particularly in cases concerning the dissolution of religious entities. The March 2025 ruling, however, deviates from this established principle. The Court did not address the religious freedom implications for believers, which raises concerns about the judiciary’s willingness to permit the dissolution of the Family Federation under Presiding Judge Kenya Suzuki at the Tokyo District Court.

Attorney Nakayama stresses that the implications of this decision extend beyond the immediate case against the Family Federation. By setting a precedent that civil wrongs may be used as grounds for dissolving religious organizations, the Supreme Court has significantly broadened the legal scope for government intervention in religious affairs. This shift may embolden future legal actions against other religious groups, potentially threatening the fundamental right to religious freedom in Japan.

The ruling also raises concerns about the potential for political and social pressures to influence judicial decisions. Given the intense scrutiny the Family Federation has faced since Abe’s assassination, the decision appears to reflect not only legal reasoning but also broader societal and political considerations. The influence of “anti-cult” activists and media campaigns suggests that the court’s ruling may have been shaped by public sentiment rather than a purely legal analysis.

In conclusion, Nakayama writes that the 3^rd March 2025, Supreme Court ruling marks a pivotal moment in Japan’s legal approach to religious organizations. By affirming that civil wrongdoings can justify dissolution under the Religious Corporations Act (RCA), the decision sets a new and potentially far-reaching precedent. While the court did not directly address the question of public harm, it effectively opened the door for the Tokyo District Court to proceed with dissolving the Family Federation.

This ruling represents a stark departure from previous jurisprudence, which had placed a strong emphasis on protecting religious freedom. It also raises broader concerns about the future of religious liberty in Japan, as well as the degree to which judicial decisions may be influenced by political and social pressures. Moving forward, it remains to be seen how this decision will shape the landscape of religious rights and government intervention in Japan.

Featured image above: Attorney Tatsuki Nakayama, here in December 2023. Photo: Sekai Nippo

Related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: “Poorly Compiled Evidence Including Falsehoods”

Also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Huge Scandal: “Ministry Is Falsifying Affidavits”

Also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Alleged Forgery: State Faces Criminal Complaint

And also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Flawed, Deceptive Evidence Gathering by State

And more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Alleged Evidence Tampering in Dissolution Case

And still more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Big Paper: State Accused of Altering Evidence

Also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Japan’s New Laws to Curb New Religious Movements

And also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: New Law Designed to Bankrupt Family Federation

Also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Terms from Consumer Law Used to Rob Faith

And also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: New Law Manufacturing “Victims”, Dividing Families

More, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Maverick Minister Lets “3 Foxes in the Henhouse”

Even more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Journalist Reveals Ugly Leftwing Conspiracy

And more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

And more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Courts Using Debunked Concepts Against Minority

Also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Dissolution Case: Wild Claims, Illegal Actions

Also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: 2nd-Generation Members Protesting Persecution

Also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Inhuman Government-Supported Mass Deprogramming

And also related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Bias: No Right to Respond for Religious Minority

More, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Japan Criticized for Glaring Rights Violations

Even more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Two European Scholars Warning Japan

And yet more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Japan Censured at Religious Freedom Event

And still more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Lawyer Exposes Dirty Leftwing Plot

And even more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Inhuman Government-Supported Mass Deprogramming

And still more, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

More, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Government’s Foul Play Pointed Out

More, related to disputed verdict affecting dissolution case: Kishida Has Opened Can of Worms