On November 18, the Supreme Court of Japan ruled a disqualifying clause in the security industry law unconstitutional, which previously prevented individuals using the adult guardianship system from working in security jobs due to perceived deficiencies in judgment capacity. This ruling is a response to the growing recognition that such blanket disqualifications impose discrimination on individuals with disabilities, raising important questions about the balance between protecting society and the rights of the individuals involved.

The disqualifying clause was established in 1982 amidst increasing incidents of crime attributed to security personnel. The government justified its existence as a means to improve the quality of security services. However, voices from disabled advocacy organizations have long argued that imposing a blanket restriction on employment opportunities for those under guardianship is inherent discrimination, pushing for reforms to ensure equal rights in the workforce regardless of one's disabilities. Notably, approximately 250,000 individuals were estimated to use the guardianship system by the end of 2024, highlighting the significant impact of such restrictions on many lives.

Legislative debates and decisions on this issue have been ongoing, culminating in the removal of similar disqualifying clauses from around 180 laws, including the security industry law, in 2019 due to calls for normalization—where disabled and non-disabled individuals can coexist equally in society. This recent ruling not only underscores the need to reconsider existing laws in light of modern perspectives on discrimination but also reflects a broader shift toward inclusivity in Japanese society, resonating with the commitment to human rights and equal opportunities for all members of society.