Security Services Law Unconstitutional: Do Not Restrict Career Choices for People with Disabilities

Editorial

17:07 JST, February 19, 2026

It is unacceptable that people with disabilities are uniformly excluded from specific occupations. A legal provision contributing to this situation was ruled unreasonable and unconstitutional. The court’s decision was only natural.

In the lawsuit over a disqualification clause in the Security Services Law that barred an individual using the adult guardianship system from becoming a security guard, the Supreme Court’s Grand Bench ruled that the clause violated the Constitution. This marks the 14th instance since the end of World War II that the Supreme Court has declared a legal provision unconstitutional.

The adult guardianship system helps manage property and contracts for people with intellectual disabilities or dementia whose judgment may be unreliable.

The plaintiff, a man in his 30s, worked as a traffic controller for a security company. He has a mild intellectual disability. When he used the adult guardianship system in 2017, his employment contract was terminated based on the disqualification clause in the Security Services Law.

In 180 laws governing professions such as civil servant, doctor and lawyer, there used to be disqualification clauses that uniformly terminated the employment of people using the adult guardianship system. These clauses were collectively abolished in 2019 amid a growing social push to eliminate discrimination and protect individual dignity.

The plaintiff lost his job in 2017, before the clauses were all abolished. But, at the time he was dismissed, Japan had already ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Supreme Court ruling noted that the ratification helped “evolve public awareness and established the idea that worker discrimination based on disability should be prohibited.”

The ruling further pointed out that the disqualification clause violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom to choose one’s occupation and equality under the law. It is all too easy to understand the frustration of this man, who lost his job based solely on a legal provision without any consideration of how well he did the work.

More than a few people lost their jobs before discrimination clauses were eliminated. There have been cases in which former employees of Nagasaki City and Suita, Osaka Prefecture, have filed lawsuits demanding they be rehired or that some other remedial action be taken, arguing that their dismissal based on a disqualification clause in the Local Public Service Law was unjust.

If the adult guardianship system, which is supposed to support the independence of people with disabilities, were in fact to serve as a shackle restricting their freedom of occupational choice, it would be entirely contradictory to the original aim. The government bears heavy responsibility for having neglected this issue.

While disqualification clauses related to the adult guardianship system were eliminated, over 700 laws are said to still contain similar clauses for physical or intellectual disabilities. Some people with disabilities may lose hope for the future and could give up on finding employment.

Workers need different abilities and skills depending on the job. The nature and degree of disabilities also differ widely. It is essential for companies and government entities to understand the specific characteristics of disabilities and create workplaces that accommodate them.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Feb. 19, 2026)