Supreme Court Justice's Dissenting Opinion on Welfare for Foreigners Sparks Intense Debate

A recent decision by Japan's Supreme Court regarding welfare applications by foreign nationals undergoing medical treatment has created a major stir on social media. While the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, it was revealed that Justice Mamoru Miura, one of the four judges presiding over the case, issued a dissenting opinion declaring the exclusion of foreign nationals from the Public Assistance Act to be "unconstitutional and void," igniting fierce discussions.

This lawsuit was brought by a Ghanaian man receiving artificial dialysis for chronic renal failure who sought to overturn the rejection of his welfare application. The Supreme Court's majority opinion dismissed the man's appeal without stepping into a specific constitutional judgment, but Justice Miura, acting as the presiding judge, issued a solo dissenting opinion.

In his opinion, Justice Miura pointed out that excluding impoverished individuals who hold residence status for medical treatment from the scope of protection "poses a threat to survival, is remarkably inhumane, and disregards human dignity." Arguing that "there is no reasonable basis for treating them differently under the law from Japanese citizens," he made it clear that such exclusion violates Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to maintain a minimum standard of living, as well as the principle of equality under the law, rendering it invalid.

When this judgment was reported, interest surged as "Justice Mamoru Miura" trended on social media. Based on the wording of Article 25 of the Constitution, which uses the phrase "all citizens," and from the perspective of public expenditure burdens, a series of critical voices emerged, stating that "public assistance is a right of citizens and should not be extended to foreigners" and "this judgment is unacceptable," with some even mentioning potential dismissal in the Supreme Court Justice national review.

On the other hand, many voices highly praised and defended Justice Miura's view as a "conscientious judgment that confronts human dignity and the right to life head-on from a humanitarian standpoint" and an "important opinion pointing out flaws in the legal system." Sparked by this judicial decision, debates surrounding the human rights of foreign residents and the nature of the social safety net in Japan are likely to continue.

The context

In Japan, the Public Assistance Act (Seikatsu Hogo) guarantees a minimum standard of living. While the statutory text uses the word "citizens" (kokumin), a 1954 administrative notification by the Ministry of Health and Welfare interpreted this to mean that foreign nationals are not legally entitled to public assistance, though they may receive it as a matter of grace depending on their status of residence. The Supreme Court previously ruled in 2014 that foreign nationals without permanent residence are not subjects of the constitutional right to public assistance, but debates regarding the humanitarian aspects and international human rights standards continue to divide legal experts and the public alike.