## Facts

- The Japanese government planned to build a Nike anti-aircraft missile base in a forest in Hokkaidō.
- The government relied on the Self-Defense Force Law as the statutory basis for the project.
- Various challengers, including Ito (named in the caption), opposed the project and brought an administrative challenge.
- The challengers argued that using the Self-Defense Force Law to justify construction of a military installation was invalid under Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.
- The case reached the Sapporo High Court on appeal and is reported at 27 Gyosai reishu 1175 (1976).

## Issues

1. Whether reliance on the Self-Defense Force Law to construct a Nike anti-aircraft missile base was invalid because it conflicted with Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.
2. Whether the challenged governmental action connected to commissioning/authorizing the base could be set aside in administrative litigation on constitutional grounds.
3. Whether doctrines limiting administrative and constitutional review (including standing and the reviewability of national-defense decisions) restricted the court’s ability to reach the merits.

## Decision

- The Sapporo High Court decided the appeal in an administrative case reported in the Gyosai reishu (Administrative Case Law Reports).
- Public, freely accessible English summaries confirm the dispute’s subject matter (a Nike anti-aircraft missile base in Hokkaidō, justified under the Self-Defense Force Law, challenged under Article 9) but do not provide the court’s specific disposition or reasoning.
- Because the full judgment text and detailed English case summaries are not available in the accessible sources provided, the precise holding (including whether the appeal was affirmed or reversed and on what grounds) cannot be stated here with certainty.

## Legal Principles

- A litigant may frame an administrative challenge to a government project by arguing that the statutory authority invoked for the project is unconstitutional as applied, including under Article 9.
- When an administrative dispute centers on a defense-related facility, the court’s analysis may involve both constitutional questions (the meaning and limits of Article 9) and administrative-law questions (the legality of the challenged governmental act within the statutory scheme).
- Without the decision text, no case-specific rule statement, doctrinal test, or definitive merits holding should be attributed to the Sapporo High Court beyond the fact that it resolved an appeal concerning an Article 9-based challenge to a missile-base project justified under the Self-Defense Force Law.

## Conclusion

*Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries v. Ito* is a 1976 Sapporo High Court appellate administrative case involving opposition to a planned Nike anti-aircraft missile base in a Hokkaidō forest; the challengers contended that relying on the Self-Defense Force Law to build the installation was invalid under Constitution Article 9, but accessible public materials do not disclose the court’s specific holding or reasoning.


Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries v. Ito, 27 Gyosai reishu 1175 (1976)