In its ruling, the Supreme Court's petty bench applied the statute of limitations under the Civil Code, which states that the right to demand compensation for an illegal act ends if that right is not exercised within 20 years of the unlawful act. The court did not rule on whether the government's provision of names constituted a violation of the separation of religion and state. In a supplementary opinion, Justice Akira Ojima stated that even if there was an act of the state that violated the separation of religion and state, the level of psychological damage was considerably lighter than that of a serious infringement affecting life or limb, and that the case in question was not one where the statute of limitations would be excluded as an exception. Justice Mamoru Miura gave the only dissenting opinion among the four justices on the bench, saying there was room to consider the case a violation of the separation of religion and state as the enshrinement had gone ahead as a national policy, and that the case should be sent back to the high court to thoroughly deliberate the issue.