Tokyo International News Agency

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 th...

The Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a Ghanaian national who suffered from renal failure after arriving in Japan and sought public assistance to cover his artificial dialysis treatment, finalizing his defeat in the lawsuit. This judicial decision has sparked intense debate on social media. The lawsuit was filed to seek the revocation of the rejection of his public assistance application, arguing that denying it solely because he is a foreign national was illegal. Based on the Public Assistance Act, which defines its subjects as "Japanese nationals," and past Supreme Court precedents, many supportive opinions were posted online. These included views that the decision was "only natural," that caution should be exercised regarding public assistance for foreigners, and that it is necessary to prevent concerns about people coming to Japan for medical purposes or fraudulent receipt of benefits. The context In Japan, the Public Assistance ...