Background
The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (世界平和統一家庭連合, formerly known internationally as the Unification Church) is a religious corporation registered under Japan’s Religious Corporations Act (宗教法人法). The Tokyo District Court issued a dissolution order against the organization under Article 81, paragraph 1, item 1 of that Act, finding that the Federation’s members had, over a prolonged period spanning from 1973 to 2022, continuously engaged in tortious solicitation of donations — conduct that caused extensive financial and psychological harm to a large number of people. The lower court found that this solicitation was carried out under the organization’s systematic direction, driven by internal numerical targets that could not be met through methods within the bounds of social norms, rooted in a doctrinal policy holding that Japanese believers should make economic sacrifices for the benefit of other nations.
The Tokyo High Court dismissed the Federation’s immediate appeal (即時抗告), prompting the Federation to file a special appeal (特別抗告) to the Supreme Court. The Federation argued, principally, that the dissolution order and the appellate ruling violate the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of association under Articles 20(1) and 21(1) of the Constitution of Japan, and that the appellate proceedings violated the right to a judicial hearing and the principle of open-court proceedings under Articles 32 and 82 by not holding oral argument.
The Supreme Court accepted the case on special appeal, which in Japan is limited to constitutional questions.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Petty Bench, in a unanimous decision authored by Presiding Justice Watanabe Eriko and joined by Justices Hayashi Michiharu, Ishikane Kimihiro, and Hiraki Masahiro, dismissed the special appeal. On the constitutional freedom of religion challenge, the Court reaffirmed prior precedent — notably its January 30, 1996 First Petty Bench decision (平成8(ク)8, Minshu Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 199) — that a dissolution order under Article 81(1)(i) merely strips the organization of its juridical personality; it does not legally prohibit or restrict the religious activities of believers. While the Court acknowledged that dissolution triggers liquidation proceedings under which property used for religious worship may be disposed of, causing some practical impediment to believers’ religious activities, it held that any such impediment is indirect and factual in nature. The Court further noted that the Federation may continue to exist as an unincorporated religious body, so the impact on the freedom of religious association is equally indirect and factual. Balancing these considerations against the severity and duration of the tortious conduct and the absence of any effective alternative remedy — including measures available under the Act on Prevention of Unjust Solicitation of Donations by Corporations — the Court held the dissolution order to be necessary and unavoidable.
On the procedural challenge, the Court held that dissolution proceedings under Article 81(1) are non-contentious matters (非訟事件) — not pure adversarial litigation aimed at adjudicating private substantive rights — and therefore do not require oral argument in a public court. Appellate review of a dissolution order is a continuation of the same non-contentious procedural framework, and accordingly also need not be conducted with oral argument. The Court found no violation of Articles 32 or 82 of the Constitution, citing its own Grand Bench decisions of December 27, 1966 (昭和37(ク)64, Minshu Vol. 20, No. 10, p. 2279) and June 24, 1970 (昭和41(ク)402, Minshu Vol. 24, No. 6, p. 610).
The Court also summarily rejected the remaining grounds of appeal, finding that although they were framed as constitutional claims, they were in substance mere assertions of statutory error and therefore did not meet the requirements for a special appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Conduct constituting a tort under Article 709 of the Civil Code qualifies as conduct “in violation of laws and regulations” for purposes of Article 81(1)(i) of the Religious Corporations Act, confirming the First Petty Bench’s March 3, 2025 ruling (令和6(許)31, Minshu Vol. 79, No. 3, p. 997).
- A dissolution order’s interference with religious freedom is constitutionally permissible where it is indirect and factual, the conduct is serious and ongoing, and no effective alternative remedy exists — the organization may continue as an unincorporated body.
- Religious corporation dissolution proceedings are non-contentious matters; neither the initial proceeding nor the appeal requires oral argument in open court, consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent.
- Systematic, organization-directed solicitation of donations through targets unreachable by socially acceptable means, causing widespread financial and psychological harm over decades, satisfies the “clearly recognized as markedly harmful to the public welfare” standard for dissolution.
Why It Matters
This decision is the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling on the legality of the Japanese government’s effort to dissolve the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification — a proceeding that drew intense public attention following the July 2022 assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe by an assailant who cited family grievances against the organization. The ruling resolves any remaining constitutional doubt about the government’s authority to strip large religious corporations of their juridical personality based on systematic tortious conduct, even where dissolution will have collateral practical effects on the religious life of believers.
More broadly, the decision clarifies the constitutional framework for balancing freedom of religion against public welfare in Japan: the key inquiry is whether any restriction on religious activity is direct and legal, or merely indirect and factual. Because dissolution leaves the religious body free to continue operating without a legal personality, courts need not treat it as the equivalent of banning a religion. The ruling also settles that dissolution proceedings — including appeals — may proceed on the papers without oral argument, foreclosing a procedural avenue that respondent religious corporations might otherwise use to delay or complicate such proceedings.