Japan Supreme Court upholds damages against city over defamation by ex-Mayor Ishimaru
TOKYO -- Japan's Supreme Court on April 23 upheld two lower court rulings that ordered the city of Akitakata, Hiroshima Prefecture, to pay damages for defamation caused by social media remarks by former Mayor Shinji Ishimaru, rejecting an appeal by the city.
In its ruling, the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court overseen by Presiding Justice Kimihiro Ishikane upheld earlier district and high court decisions that had ordered the city to pay 330,000 yen (approx. $2,300) in damages for defamation of assembly member Atsuko Yamane, finalizing the municipal government's defeat in the case. The decision was unanimous by the five justices present.
After serving as mayor of Akitakata, Ishimaru ran in the Tokyo gubernatorial election in July 2024, placing second in the race.
According to the lower court rulings, in November 2020, when Ishimaru held the mayoral post, he repeatedly posted claims on social media saying that when he discussed the state of the assembly with council members, Yamane threatened, "If you make enemies of the assembly, it will be impossible to pass policies."
The Hiroshima District Court ruling in December 2023 found that the alleged statement was not recorded in audio data of the meeting, and determined the posts were untrue. Since the posts were made using the mayoral account, the court recognized the act as an official duty. The Hiroshima High Court in July 2024 supported this judgment.
Under Japan's State Redress Act, if a local government employee such as a mayor is found to have caused damage to another person unlawfully, the municipality, not the individual official, is liable for compensation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
a day ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Says He Will Move Aggressively to Undo Nationwide Blocks on His Agenda
An emboldened Trump administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the president's top priorities, from immigration to education, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said a White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the U.S. DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said, detailing efforts to implement plans President Donald Trump announced Friday. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' Trump said at a news conference, during which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Trump's second term – even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organizations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realize they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise skeptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realize,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and – in my view – unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said.
Japan Times
2 days ago
- Japan Times
Trump's court win opens a path to clear hurdles to his agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of U.S. courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair game' "Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a news conference in the White House Friday that the administration will "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and "stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.' The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total "retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple paths "It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. "But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a U.S. law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. "This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. "It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that he and his Democratic colleagues would "assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. "The court confirmed what we've thought all along — nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said.
2 days ago
イランに「孤独ではない」 旧ソ連経済同盟が首脳会議
After the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions — but didn't rule on the legality of President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship — immigrant rights groups are trying a new tactic by filing a national class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two immigrant rights organizations whose members include people without legal status in the U.S. who "have had or will have children born in the United States after February 19, 2025," according to court documents. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, says his colleagues at CASA, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project think that, with the class action approach "we will be able to get complete relief for everyone who would be covered by the executive order." The strategic shift required three court filings: one to add class allegations to the initial complaint; a second to move for class certification; and a third asking a district court in Maryland to issue "a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking for relief for that putative class," Powell said. In the amended complaint, filed two hours after the Supreme Court's ruling, the immigrant rights attorneys said that Trump's effort to ban birthright citizenship, if allowed to stand, "would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country." "The Executive Order threatens these newborns' identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship, including calling into question their ability to remain in their country of birth," reads the complaint. Rights groups and 22 states had asked federal judges to block President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Issued on his first day in office, the executive order states, "the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." But after three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump's order, issuing universal injunctions preventing its enforcement nationwide, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether. The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright issue itself. But after the ruling, Trump called it a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," in a briefing at the White House. The president said the ruling means his administration can now move forward with his efforts to fundamentally reshape longstanding U.S. policy on immigration and citizenship. Friday's ruling quickly sparked questions about how the dispute over birthright citizenship will play out now — and how the ruling on universal injunctions might affect other efforts to push back on executive policies, under President Trump and future presidents. "Nationwide injunctions have been an important tool to prevent blatantly illegal and unconstitutional conduct," the National Immigrant Justice Center's director of litigation, Keren Zwick, said in a statement sent to NPR. The decision to limit such injunctions, she said, "opens a pathway for the president to break the law at will." Both Zwick and Powell emphasized that the Supreme Court did not rule on a key question: whether Trump's executive order is legal. At the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi would not answer questions about how the order might be implemented and enforced. "This is all pending litigation," she said, adding that she expects the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall. "We're obviously disappointed with the result on nationwide injunctions," Powell said. But, he added, he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately quash Trump's attack on birthright citizenship. "The executive order flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment citizenship clause and Section 1401a of the Immigration and Nationality Act," Powell said, "both of which guarantee birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions for ambassadors [and] invading armies." The court's ruling set a 30-day timeframe for the policy laid out in Trump's executive order to take effect. "The Government here is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts' entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act," a syllabus, or headnote, of the Supreme Court's ruling states. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also discusses the differences between "complete relief " and "universal relief." "Here, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship," Barrett wrote. "Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete." In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling suggests that constitutional guarantees might not apply to anyone who isn't a party to a lawsuit. The concept of birthright citizenship has deep roots, dating to the English common law notion of jus soli ("right of the soil"). The doctrine was upended for a time in the U.S. by the Supreme Court's notorious Dred Scott ruling. Current legal standing for birthright citizenship in the U.S. extends back to the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified, stating, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." "Any executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship is just as unconstitutional today as it was yesterday," Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, told NPR. "There is nothing substantively in the decision that undercuts those lower court opinions. The opinion just undercuts the tools available to the courts to enforce that constitutional mandate." Copyright 2025 NPR
