Japan's highest court delivered significant rulings on January 26, 2026, addressing two major historical issues that continue to impact residents and shape the country's legal landscape. The Supreme Court decisions on Fukushima nuclear disaster compensation and a Tokyo District Court ruling on North Korea's post-war repatriation program mark important developments in Japan's ongoing reconciliation with its past. According to NHK, Japan's Supreme Court rejected appeals in collective lawsuits filed by Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees against both the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The lawsuits, filed in seven courts across the country, sought compensation from both entities for damages suffered following the March 2011 nuclear disaster. While the Supreme Court's decision upheld TEPCO's liability for compensation, it notably declined to recognize the national government's responsibility in the disaster. This ruling concludes years of litigation by residents who were forced to evacuate their homes following the meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. For foreign residents in Japan, this decision reinforces the legal precedent that nuclear disaster compensation falls primarily on the operating company rather than the state. While this may seem distant from daily concerns, it establishes important principles about corporate versus governmental liability in Japan's legal system—a distinction that could affect how future industrial disasters are handled. In a separate landmark case, the Tokyo District Court issued Japan's first-ever ruling ordering the North Korean government to pay damages to former participants in the post-war "repatriation project." Between 1959 and 1984, approximately 93,000 ethnic Koreans living in Japan, along with their Japanese spouses, relocated to North Korea under a program promoted as an opportunity to move to a "paradise on earth." The plaintiffs, who eventually defected from North Korea, argued they were deceived by false propaganda and subsequently forced to endure harsh living conditions. The Tokyo District Court ruled that the North Korean government had disseminated false information and subjected the returnees to severe hardship, ordering compensation for the plaintiffs. This unprecedented decision represents the first time a Japanese court has held the North Korean government financially liable for its actions. However, legal experts note that actually collecting damages from North Korea will likely prove impossible given the absence of diplomatic relations and enforcement mechanisms. The court also addressed a related case involving second-generation atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima. These "hibakusha nisei" challenged the constitutionality of laws that exclude them from receiving the same support benefits available to direct atomic bomb survivors. The Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions, confirming that second-generation survivors are not entitled to the same legal protections and benefits as their parents who directly experienced the 1945 atomic bombings. For expatriates living in Japan, these rulings offer insights into how Japanese courts handle complex historical and humanitarian issues. The Fukushima decision demonstrates the judiciary's reluctance to expand governmental liability beyond existing legal frameworks, while the North Korea repatriation ruling shows courts are willing to make symbolic judgments even when enforcement appears unlikely. The hibakusha case illustrates how narrowly Japanese law can define eligibility for state benefits, even in cases involving intergenerational trauma. These decisions collectively reflect Japan's ongoing struggle to balance legal accountability with practical governance concerns. While foreign residents are unlikely to be directly affected by these specific rulings, they provide valuable context for understanding Japan's legal system, particularly regarding government liability, corporate responsibility, and how courts address historical injustices. As Japan continues to grapple with the long-term consequences of both the Fukushima disaster and historical events, these cases will likely influence future litigation and policy decisions affecting all residents.