## Facts

- Yasuko Nakaya, a practicing Christian, married an officer of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (SDF) who did not follow a religion.
- After the husband died on duty in 1968, funerals were conducted with Buddhist rites; Nakaya later placed some ashes at her church and held annual Christian memorial services.
- Years later, a private SDF veterans’ group arranged for collective Shinto enshrinement of deceased SDF members at a local Gokoku Shrine, including Nakaya’s husband.
- Nakaya expressly refused consent, but the enshrinement proceeded; it was a ritual act and did not involve moving remains.
- Nakaya sued the State and the veterans’ group, seeking (1) damages from the State for infringement of religious freedom and (2) relief against the veterans’ group to stop or cancel the enshrinement.
- The district court and high court found SDF officials had cooperated with the veterans’ group and treated the enshrinement as unconstitutional state involvement with Shinto; damages and relief were granted.
- The State appealed to the Supreme Court of Japan, Grand Bench.

## Issues

1. Whether assistance by an SDF liaison office in the enshrinement process constituted prohibited “religious activity” by a state organ under the constitutional separation of religion and state.
2. Whether enshrinement over a family member’s religious objection, without forcing participation or imposing legal/material disadvantage, unlawfully infringed freedom of religion or a legally protected spiritual interest supporting tort damages.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court quashed the lower-court judgments and dismissed Nakaya’s claims, assigning litigation costs to her.
- The Court held the enshrinement was performed by private actors (the veterans’ group and shrine) and was not the product of joint action attributable to a state organ.
- The Court concluded the SDF liaison office’s involvement was incidental and did not amount to constitutionally prohibited state “religious activity.”
- The Court held that subjective disturbance of religious feelings from others’ religious acts, without coercion or disadvantage, does not create a legally cognizable injury warranting damages.

## Legal Principles

- Government conduct related to a religious institution is not necessarily “religious activity” barred by separation-of-religion-and-state provisions when the initiative and substance are attributable to private actors and official involvement is limited.
- A structural separation-of-religion-and-state violation does not automatically yield a private damages remedy.
- Tort liability for interference with religious freedom generally requires conduct exceeding tolerable social bounds, typically involving coercion to engage in religious practice or the imposition of legal or material disadvantage.
- Freedom of religion protects against compelled religious participation and punitive treatment based on belief, but does not guarantee an interference-free spiritual environment from the acts of private persons or groups.

## Conclusion

The court rejected both the characterization of the enshrinement as state religious activity and the widow’s claim for damages, holding that limited governmental assistance did not make the enshrinement an official religious act and that noncoercive religious offense, without tangible disadvantage, is not an actionable infringement of religious freedom.


Japan v. Nakaya, 42 Minshū 5, 277 (Sup. Ct. Japan 1988)