The reasons for rejection included such grounds as the claim that the description of the High Treason Incident (大逆事件) was not appropriate, and that the draft did not clarify the fact that the Russo-Japanese War was supported by the Japanese people.
After the curriculum guidelines (学習指導要領) for high school social studies changed in 1955, Ienaga applied for authorization for the third and fourth editions of his textbook in November 1956 and May 1957.
Article 21 specifically prohibits censorship in an independent section because it is the principle of the democratic constitution of Japan that the people are guaranteed the opportunities to freely enjoy the results of scholastic researches, be exposed to all sorts of ideas and opinions, and know socio-political reality and historical truth through various media such as press, radio, and television.
[citation needed] At the first trial (filed by Ienaga on June 12, 1965, ruled on July 16, 1974, at Tokyo District Court), Judge Takatsu ruled that the textbook authorization system could not be deemed censorship as defined in the Article 21 of the Constitution because such a system should be allowed on the ground of public welfare, while ordering the state to compensate Ienaga 100,000 yen for a certain abuse of discretion.
At the second trial (filed by Ienaga on July 26, 1974, ruled on March 19, 1986, at Tokyo High Court), Judge Suzuki wholly adopted the claim of the state and denied any abuse of discretion in the authorization process.
At the first trial (filed by Ienaga on June 12, 1965, ruled on July 16, 1974, at Tokyo District Court), Judge Sugimoto ruled that authorization that affects the content of the description of textbooks is against Article 10 of the Fundamental Law of Education, and that the authorization falls under the category of censorship as defined in Section 2, Article 21 of the Constitution, and demanded the state reverse its decision.
At the second trial (filed by the state on October 13, 1989, ruled on October 20, 1993, at Tokyo High Court), Judge Kawakami ruled that while the authorization system itself was constitutional, there was a certain abuse of discretion on the part of the Ministry regarding the unconstitutional censoring of the descriptions of Nanking Massacre and sexual assaults by the military in addition to sōmōtai, and ordered the state to compensate Ienaga 300,000 yen.
At the third trial (filed by Ienaga on October 25, 1993, ruled on August 29, 1997, at Supreme Court), Judge Ono ruled that while the authorization system itself was constitutional, there was a certain abuse of discretion on the part of the Ministry regarding the unconstitutional censoring of the descriptions of Unit 731, sexual assaults at Nanking in addition to sōmōtai, and ordered the state to pay Ienaga 400,000 yen as compensation.