The Supreme Court of Japan recently declared that the ineligibility clause in the security industry law, which barred individuals utilizing the adult guardianship system from working in security-related roles, is unconstitutional. This ruling marked only the 14th instance since World War II that the court has deemed a law unconstitutional. While the ruling provided a significant precedent for supporting the rights of individuals with mental disabilities, it did not grant compensation to the plaintiff, a man from Gifu Prefecture, whose employment was terminated due to his guardianship status.

The case revolves around a male security guard who had been working since 2014 but was forced to resign in 2017 after obtaining a 'supporter' via the adult guardianship system due to his mild intellectual disability. He claimed that the ineligibility clause was a violation of his constitutional rights, specifically the right to freedom of occupation and equality under the law. Although the Supreme Court ruled the clause unconstitutional, it rejected the claim for damages, dismissing the responsibility of the national government for his job loss, which he argued was a direct consequence of the state’s neglect in revising the law.

In 2019, following this lawsuit, significant amendments were made which removed similar ineligibility clauses from around 180 different laws, reflecting a governmental recognition of the need for reform. During the court hearings, the defense argued that the ineligibility clause was reasonable given the responsibilities inherent to security work, but the court ultimately sided with the plaintiff's argument that such blanket exclusions were contrary to the principles of equality and freedom in the constitution. This landmark case offers hope for many individuals facing similar discrimination in employment due to their guardianship status or disabilities.