Ruling Leaves Serious Questions on Due Process

Japan’s hasty Supreme Court verdict raises serious concerns about due process, judicial impartiality, and religious freedom

Tokyo, 26^th June 2026 – Published as an article in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article.

Part 1 of opinion contribution by Dr. Massimo Introvigne, Founder and Managing Director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR)

Japan’s Supreme Court Finalizes Dissolution of the Family Federation

Serious Questions About Neutrality and Due Process

by Massimo Introvigne, Sociologist of Religion

The lawsuit has come to an end through a swift and remarkably concise ruling. Yet the judgment leaves serious questions regarding judicial neutrality, due process, and the future of religious freedom in Japan.

See also part 2: Verdict Under the Shadow of “Mind Control” Myth

See also Japan’s Treatment of Faith Minority Families

See also Dissolution Case: Pseudoscience Shaping Verdict

See also Brussels Press Conference Condemns Dissolution

See also The Hidden Story Japan Doesn’t Want You to Hear

On 23^rd June, Japan’s Supreme Court finalized the Tokyo High Court‘s 2026 decision upholding the dissolution order against the Unification Church (the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, formerly known as the Unification Church). The decision was issued with unusual speed, and its reasoning leaves many important questions unanswered.

The ruling concludes a series of judicial proceedings that began after the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (安倍晋三). Throughout the process, however, the case unfolded amid political pressure, a hostile media environment, and a new interpretation of the Religious Corporations Act that opened the door to a legal outcome previously regarded as impossible.

Bitter Winter previously analyzed the Tokyo High Court‘s decision in detail. That ruling relied primarily on civil lawsuits dating back several decades and adopted an expansive interpretation of Article 81 of the Religious Corporations Act. It treated acts of civil wrongdoing (tortious acts) committed by individual believers as grounds for dissolving the religious corporation itself. Moreover, the conduct at issue consisted neither of criminal offenses nor of recent acts.

The Tokyo High Court further embraced the proposition that a religious organization may be dissolved if aspects of its internal culture or doctrinal characteristics are deemed likely to create a risk of future harm. This standard is extraordinarily vague and expansive and, if applied broadly, could potentially be used against virtually any religion.

The Supreme Court has now fully endorsed that reasoning. Its decision is notably brief. While dismissing the appeal, it offers almost no additional analysis beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions.

The core of the decision merely repeats the lower court’s findings, accepting its factual determinations without substantial independent examination and adopting its legal framework without responding to concerns raised by scholars, human rights experts, and international observers.

The Supreme Court states that a dissolution order affects only the legal status of the religious corporation and does not restrict believers’ freedom to practice their faith itself. Therefore, it concludes, the order does not violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

he Court also acknowledges that liquidation proceedings will result in the disposal of property that has been used for places of worship and religious activities. Nevertheless, it characterizes these consequences not as restrictions on religious life but merely as “indirect” effects.

This reasoning simply mirrors that of the Tokyo High Court without confronting the more fundamental issue: in Japan, the loss of corporate legal status has an enormous practical impact on believers’ religious lives. Losing legal personality directly affects the ability to own property, manage finances, employ staff, and maintain stable, ongoing religious activities.

The Supreme Court characterizes these consequences as merely “indirect”, but that characterization fails to reflect the reality of how religious communities actually function.

Continued in part 2: Verdict Under the Shadow of “Mind Control” Myth

See also Japan’s Treatment of Faith Minority Families

See also Dissolution Case: Pseudoscience Shaping Verdict

See also Brussels Press Conference Condemns Dissolution

See also The Hidden Story Japan Doesn’t Want You to Hear

See also Japanese Court Assumes the Role of Inquisitor

See also: The Contradictions of the Dissolution Order

Featured image above: Massimo Introvigne was born in Rome, Italy, in June 1955. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars specializing in new religious movements. He has authored approximately 70 books and more than 100 academic articles in the field of sociology of religion and serves as editor-in-chief of the online magazine Bitter Winter. Photo: Sekai Nippo

Related to serious questions on due process: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to serious questions on due process: Scholar Questions Secrecy in Dissolution Case

And more, related to serious questions on due process: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

Still more, related to serious questions on due process: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to serious questions on due process: Japan: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to serious questions on due process: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to serious questions on due process: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to serious questions on due process: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to serious questions on due process: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to serious questions on due process: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to serious questions on due process: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to serious questions on due process: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to serious questions on due process: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to serious questions on due process: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to serious questions on due process: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to serious questions on due process: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to serious questions on due process: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to serious questions on due process: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to serious questions on due process: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to serious questions on due process: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to serious questions on due process: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to serious questions on due process: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to serious questions on due process: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to serious questions on due process: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

And still more, related to serious questions on due process: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to serious questions on due process: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

Even more, related to critical questions on due process: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to critical questions on due process: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to critical questions on due process: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression

Still more, related to critical questions on due process: Dissolution Case: Rule of Law on Trial 4th March