What does it mean when a Supreme Court justice has already condemned the defendant before the case begins?
That is the question now before Japan's highest court.
The Supreme Court is preparing to rule on whether to dissolve the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, the religious group formerly known as the Unification Church.
One of the five justices set to decide the case, Okino Masami, publicly denounced the group at a consumer seminar hosted by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations the year before her appointment.
On May 21, 2026, four attorneys representing the Family Federation filed a motion to remove her—and exposed a deeper concern about the integrity of Japanese justice itself.
The Dissolution Order and the Special Appeal
In early 2026, the Tokyo High Court dismissed the immediate appeal filed against the Tokyo District Court's dissolution order of March 25, 2025, which had ordered the dissolution of the religious corporation Family Federation. The Family Federation then filed a special appeal with the Supreme Court, and the case was assigned for review to the Third Petty Bench, where Justice Okino sits.
The Supreme Court of Japan consists of 15 justices, typically divided into three petty benches of five justices each. One of the five members of the Third Petty Bench is Justice Okino Masami, and the Family Federation now objects to her involvement in the case itself.
Justice Okino's Background
Justice Okino Masami is a scholar of civil law and consumer law who graduated from the University of Tokyo Faculty of Law. She served as a professor at the University of Tokyo Graduate Schools for Law and Politics before being appointed to the Supreme Court on July 24, 2025, under the second Ishiba Cabinet.
Rather than rising through the judicial ranks at district and high courts, she was elevated to the Supreme Court directly from academia. She was 62 at the time of her appointment.
What the Family Federation now challenges is a series of statements she made at a public seminar hosted by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) on July 6, 2024, the year before her appointment to the Supreme Court.
The Seminar and Its Participants
The seminar's full title was "The 34th JFBA Summer Consumer Seminar: Understanding the Reality of Spiritual Sales and Considering Relief and Prevention."
Despite its neutral-sounding title, the entire program was built around criticism of the Family Federation.
The panel was organized by attorneys from the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales (Zenkoku Benren), a left-wing anti-cult lawyers' network that has driven nearly all civil litigation against the Family Federation.
Justice Okino, then a professor at the University of Tokyo, joined this lineup as one of three speakers. The motion argues that "Justice Okino's lecture and panel remarks, together with the seminar as a whole, were premised on the assumption that the Family Federation is inherently evil and that all believers are victims."
Four Statements Now in the Spotlight
The motion quotes multiple statements by Justice Okino, but four passages are at the heart of the challenge.
First, a statement asserting that proselytization and religious instruction themselves constitute unlawful conduct:
"What is characteristic of this issue is that the very acts referred to as proselytization and instruction are fundamentally problematic. They are not merely solicitation for contractual purposes. Rather, they go beyond that, leading to violations of religious freedom and violations of the entire personality." (Source 2, p. 23)
The motion observes that this statement "concludes that the appellant's proselytization and instruction themselves are fundamentally problematic, and asserts that the appellant is violating religious freedom and personal dignity." It further notes that "this statement reflects directly what attorney Goro—an adversarial party to the appellant—stated in his own keynote: '3. Overview of the Unification Church's Proselytization and Instruction Process — 5. Central Issues in the Proselytization Process.'"
Second, a statement claiming that believers are subjected to "deprivation of personal liberty":
"Beyond economic harm, there is deprivation of personal liberty. Effects on children and family, destruction of the household, betrayal of dependency, deprivation of part of one's life." (Source 2, p. 23)
The motion calls this "an entirely mistaken and reversed factual recognition," arguing that "there is no instance whatsoever in which the appellant has restrained the personal liberty of a believer, and Zenkoku Benren itself has never made such a claim." It maintains that those who have actually restrained personal liberty are pastors and deprogrammers who routinely engage in abduction, confinement, and forced renunciation of faith.
Third, a statement positioning believers as "perpetrators":
"Another distinctive point is that the victim transitions into being a perpetrator. There are similarities to multi-level marketing in this regard. The believer themselves becomes a solicitor, or draws in their children and family, or surrenders assets meant for their children—surrendering property that belongs to others. Put plainly, they end up engaging in direct harm." (Source 2, p. 36)
The motion responds that "this concludes that holding the appellant's faith itself constitutes a state in which one has been misled into believing falsehoods (mind control), and goes so far as to declare that a believer's act of proselytizing others constitutes the spread of harm and a perpetrator's act."
Fourth, a statement on the alleged long-term, calculated nature of donation solicitation:
"What is difficult is that donation solicitation is conducted in a planned manner over a long-term span. While ultimately aiming at donations, the focus at the outset is on inducing conversion. The problem lies in this prior formative process." (Source 2, p. 47)
The motion responds that this "concludes that the appellant performs proselytization and instruction with the intent of extracting donations, that it actively drives believers toward making donations, and that it ruins their lives." It dismisses the view as "taken wholesale from information provided by Zenkoku Benren and mass media," and points out that the testimony of two former believers and five current believers, examined in the first instance and on appeal, makes clear that the believers' motivation for proselytizing is love—specifically, the happiness and spiritual salvation of those they reach out to.
The motion concludes: "This Justice clearly holds significant prejudice and negative recognition and views toward the appellant, and it is therefore clear that there is a possibility of impairing the fairness of the trial (Article 12, Paragraph 1 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act)."
The Legal Standing of Disqualification Motions
Disqualification of judges is a system established under Japan's Civil Procedure Code and Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act. When a party has substantial grounds to doubt the fairness of a trial, they may petition for the judge in question to be removed from the case. The decision on the motion is, in principle, made by the court to which the judge belongs.
At lower courts, there are scattered cases in which disqualification has been granted, including instances where a judge expressed prejudgment outside the courtroom. By contrast, in publicly available case records, no precedent exists in which a disqualification motion against a Supreme Court justice has been granted. The Supreme Court is composed of 15 justices, and removing one directly affects the structure of the bench. The Court itself also decides whether a disqualification motion is valid—a self-review structure.
There is, additionally, a separate procedure known as "recusal", under which a judge can voluntarily withdraw from a case. As a matter of principle, when grounds for disqualification may exist, the judge should leave the case the moment they themselves recognize those grounds. Justice Okino's seminar statements overlap substantively with the issues in this special appeal, and the Family Federation's motion is, in effect, asking the parties to prompt a judgment that the judge herself should have made.
Tanaka's Perspective
Tanaka Tomihiro, former chairman of the Family Federation, addressed the motion in detail on the YouTube channel "No Filter" (Episode 21).
Tanaka placed particular emphasis on Justice Okino's "deprivation of personal liberty" statement. "
It is genuinely astonishing that she would publicly declare, without any supporting basis whatsoever, that there is deprivation of personal liberty in the process of our proselytization and instruction." He noted that "this assertion does not appear in MEXT's own written submissions, and Zenkoku Benren has never made such a claim either."
Tanaka analyzed the justice's underlying perception this way:
"She doesn't think it's a religion. She thinks it's a money-collecting operation dressed in religious clothing. For someone like that to render fair and impartial judgment on a religion is impossible. If a person who recognizes us as a religion conducted a fair trial and still ordered dissolution, that I could understand."
Imanaka, the program's interviewer, echoed the concern, responding: "Since a person who doesn't see it as a religion is the one judging, the balance disappears." His comment reinforced the worry that the very premise underlying the judgment is already skewed.
Tanaka closed by stating: "I would like the Court to engage with this motion in good faith."
What the Supreme Court Must Demonstrate
Justice Okino was appointed to the Supreme Court in July 2025. With what kind of posture did she intend to approach a special appeal of this social significance? That question itself has now become a matter at issue.
Judging from her seminar statements, perceptions at odds with the actual reality of the religious organization, and perceptions reflecting verbatim the claims of an adversarial party, are evident throughout. "Deprivation of personal liberty." "Violation of the entire personality." "Direct harm." These conclusions stand directly opposed, from the very outset, to the arguments the Family Federation has been making throughout the litigation. Was she in a position to approach the substantive review with impartiality? This, in the end, is the question the Family Federation's motion is asking.
Demonstrating fairness and impartiality to the public is the Supreme Court's responsibility.
If the disqualification motion is treated lightly on grounds such as "impact on the composition of the bench," it will not be perceived by the public as a sign of judicial integrity. As the nation's court of last resort, it is in moments like this—when both its composition and its judgment are under scrutiny—that the Supreme Court must make its posture clear to the people of Japan.
How the Third Petty Bench handles this disqualification motion will be revealed in the near future. If the motion is denied, the substantive review will proceed with the five justices, including Justice Okino. Whichever way the Court rules, whether the proceedings can be said to have been conducted fairly in the eyes of everyone—that question will extend beyond the matter of a single religious corporation. It will shape the broader evaluation of Japan's judiciary itself.