Manga artist Yoshinori Kobayashi sued the state in the Tokyo District Court on the 26th, saying the revised Imperial House Law violates the Constitution. The law took effect on the 24th and opens the way for male-line men from former imperial branches to be adopted into the imperial family.
Japanese media report that Kobayashi filed suit on October 26 in the Tokyo District Court, with the state as defendant, calling the revised Imperial House Law unconstitutional. Kyodo News and Sankei Shimbun said the core argument is that the adoption system violates Article 14 of the Constitution. A commentary blog summarizing the claims lists a declaration that the revised law is void and 1 million yen in damages.
광고 문의 · 300×250What the Revised Law Does
The law passed the Diet in July and took effect on October 24. One aim is to secure enough members of the imperial family, and it lets female members keep their status after marriage. It also creates a system under which male-line male descendants of the 11 branches that left the imperial family in 1947, if they meet conditions such as being 15 or older with no spouse or children, can be adopted into the family after review by the Imperial Household Council.
Some opposition parties backed the bill, but criticism was loud. The Japanese Communist Party daily Akahata wrote in a July editorial that the Takaichi government pushed the revision through despite concerns, with about three hours of debate in each chamber, and noted that the LDP–Ishin coalition agreement explicitly called for adoption to maintain male-line succession. That is a party organ’s position and should be read apart from neutral fact.
The Legal Issues
The complaint argues that the adoption system in Article 38 of the revised law restricts eligibility to people from the former branches, amounting to discrimination by ‘family origin’ banned by Article 14. The Constitution allows a distinction between the imperial family and ordinary citizens, the plaintiff says, but not among citizens themselves, and limiting adoption to former-branch descendants is not indispensable to securing numbers.
He adds that constitutional scholars flagged doubts at the government’s 2021 expert panel and its report went to the Diet the next year, yet lawmakers legislated without dispelling them, so the state breached a duty. The court has not ruled, and the official reaction of the government and the Takaichi administration could not be confirmed here. The case may become a judicial test of the succession debate.
