Kobe Municipal Technical College v. Kobayashi
Japan Supreme Court
Case 1995 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 74, 50 Minshū 469 (1996)
- Written by Tom Squier, JD
Facts
Kobayashi (plaintiff) was a Japanese student who began studies at Kobe Municipal Technical College (Kobe) (defendant) in 1990. Kobe required that students complete credits in physical education to advance from first-year classes to second-year classes. In the years that Kobayashi was attending Kobe, all first-year students were required to participate in kendo classes, a form of Japanese martial art. Kobayashi was a Jehovah’s Witness, and his religion required that he abstain from the combat involved in kendo. Kobayashi asked for an accommodation in completing his physical education credits, such as writing reports or alternate physical activities, but Kobe refused to offer any accommodations. After Kobayashi refused to participate in the combat elements of his kendo classes, he received failing marks in those classes. Even though Kobayashi was achieving well in his other classes, Kobe refused to advance Kobayashi to the second year. Kobayashi repeated his first-year classes in 1991, again refusing to partake in the combat aspects of his physical-education classes. When Kobayashi failed his physical-education classes again, Kobe dismissed Kobayashi from the school for failing to advance to the second year for two academic years in a row. Kobayashi sued, arguing that Kobe’s actions were an unconstitutional infringement on his free exercise of religion. A lower court held in favor of Kobayashi, after which Kobe appealed to the supreme court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kawai, Ohnishi, Negishi, Fukuda, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.