The Supreme Court of Japan is expected to deliver a ruling regarding the constitutionality of a clause in the security industry law that disqualifies individuals who utilize the adult guardianship system from obtaining jobs in security. This legal battle began when a man in his 30s from Gifu Prefecture, who has a mild intellectual disability and required a 'guardian' to manage his finances, was forced to resign from his security job due to this disqualification clause. He has argued that this clause is unconstitutional, violating his rights to employment and equality under the Japanese constitution.

The two main points of contention in this case are whether the disqualification clause is unconstitutional and whether the government has liability for damages due to this clause. The man asserts that the blanket exclusion of individuals who utilize the adult guardianship system from security employment is a violation of his constitutional rights to freely choose a profession and to equal protection under the law. Conversely, the government argues that individuals employed in the security sector must possess adequate decision-making abilities and that the regulation serves a rational purpose in maintaining safety. Earlier rulings from both the Gifu District Court and the Nagoya High Court found the disqualification clause to be unconstitutional, stating that the man's use of a guardian does not inherently render him incapable of performing security duties.

The issue of government liability arises from the long history of the disqualification clause’s existence in various laws, prompting the plaintiff to seek damages from the government. He argues that the government neglected its duty to alter or abolish the clause despite its unconstitutionality, leading to emotional and economic harm. In response, the government contests this responsibility, claiming that the clause’s unconstitutionality was not evident at the time it was legislated and that it did not willfully neglect to address the clause. Lower courts have acknowledged the government's liability and have awarded damages to the plaintiff, which adds another layer of complexity to the forthcoming Supreme Court ruling on the matter.