Japan

Courts in Japan

The Supreme Court and the lower courts — high, district, family and summary — established under the Court Act, with the lay judge (saiban-in) system in which citizens sit alongside professional judges for certain serious criminal cases only.

Fact-checkedLast updated 25 July 2026Last reviewed 25 July 2026

Facts on this page were checked against their sources on 25 July 2026.

Japan has a single national court system. The whole judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court of Japan and in the lower courts established under the Court Act: the high courts, the district courts, the family courts and the summary courts. There is no separate prefectural or municipal court system; the courts are national, though they sit in locations across the country.

Supreme Court: The highest court and the court of final appeal. It also has the power of constitutional review — but it exercises that power only when deciding an actual case before it, not by ruling on a law in the abstract. There is no separate constitutional court in Japan.
High courts and district courts: The high courts hear appeals; the district courts are the principal courts of first instance for most serious civil and criminal matters. Together they form the main tiers between the summary courts and the Supreme Court.
Family courts: The family courts handle domestic-relations cases and juvenile cases. They are a distinct part of the system, not a division of the ordinary civil or criminal courts.
Summary courts: The summary courts handle minor civil claims and lighter criminal cases. They are the lowest tier and the most numerous, dealing with the everyday, lower-value matters.

Note

The lay judge (saiban-in) system — not a jury

Since it began on 21 May 2009, Japan has run a lay judge system, saiban-in (裁判員), in which randomly selected citizens take part in trials. It is important to state precisely what it is and is not. Lay judges sit TOGETHER WITH professional judges on a mixed panel and decide both the verdict and the sentence with them; they are not a separate jury that decides guilt on its own. And it applies only to certain serious criminal cases — broadly, offences punishable by death or by life imprisonment, and intentional criminal acts that cause death — not to trials in general. The Supreme Court describes it as having points in common with a jury system; on these pages it is called the lay judge system, and where "jury" is unavoidable as a comparison it is always qualified, never used as a plain equivalent.

What do courts do?
Courts resolve disputes, test the state’s case against individuals, interpret law, and review public decisions. This guide explains those functions and why judicial independence is structural.
What is due process?
Due process is the requirement that the state follow fair, established procedures before it takes action against a person. This guide explains what it typically includes and how it differs between systems.

Sources

Judicial System in Japan / The Judicial System and Courts in Japan
Supreme Court of Japan (courts.go.jp) · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-25
The Supreme Court's own English account of the court system, obtained by search retrieval of the official page (courts.go.jp truncates automated fetches). Supports: the courts established under the Court Act (1947) — Supreme Court, high courts, district courts, family courts and summary courts; that the Supreme Court is the highest court and exercises judicial review only in a concrete case, not in the abstract; that family courts also handle juvenile cases; and the Saiban-in (lay judge) system — begun 21 May 2009, in which randomly selected lay judges sit WITH professional judges in the district court for certain serious criminal cases only (offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, or intentional criminal acts causing death), described as having points in common with a jury system. Supports court structure and the lay-judge scope; not caseload figures. As the Supreme Court's own institutional description its facts are stated as such; it is not a statute.

The same idea, explained generally

Sources

Sources