The US embassy in Tokyo has ceased notarizing “affidavits of competency to marry” that US citizens need (or maybe used to need) to marry in Japan. The embassy published an interesting and, to me, baffling note, which I learned of in a post by Levi Pells on LinkedIn, explaining its reasoning:

Marriages fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of each of the various states of the United States, and there is no centralized registry through which our diplomatic offices could ascertain the marital status of a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, the federal government of the United States does not record these administrative acts. Consequently, the federal government of the United States does not possess any information regarding the civil status of U.S. citizens.

The Embassy and Consulates of the United States do not issue civil status certificates, apostilled documents, nor do they record any civil documents. Prior to September 1, 2025, U.S. citizens in Japan could make a sworn declaration regarding their civil status before a consular official with notarial authority. However, the consular official had no means to verify the accuracy of the sworn declaration. The federal government of the United States does not guarantee the veracity of such documentation, does not independently confirm the accuracy of its contents, and does not provide any enforcement mechanism should the statements be inaccurate. Therefore, the U.S. Embassy and its U.S. Consulates General will discontinue offering this service.

I think what the embassy is saying is that because US citizens might make false declarations regarding their capacity to marry in Japan (for example, I suppose, falsely stating that they are unmarried, or that if married, the spouse has died or a divorce has become final), the embassy will no longer provide notarial services for such declarations. This makes no sense to me. A notary, or a consular official acting as a notary, administers an oath and certifies the identity of the person who makes the oath. He or she does not guarantee the accuracy of the statements made under oath. And the State Department has a rule, 22 C.F.R. § 92.10, that seems right on point:

If the notarizing officer has reason to believe that material statements in a document presented for notarization are false, and if no basis exists for refusing the notarial service in accordance with § 92.9, he may consider the advisability of informing the applicant that he will perform the service only with a specific waiver of responsibility included in the notarial certificate. Furthermore, a notarizing officer may, in his discretion, add to the specific waiver in the notarial certificate a statement of verifiable facts known to him, which will reveal the falsity of material in the document. However, normally a notarizing officer shall exercise great caution not to limit the general privilege of a United States citizen while abroad to execute under oath any statement he sees fit to make, including mistaken, unnecessary, and even frivolous statements: Provided, That substantial and compelling reasons do not exist which impel restraining action on the part of the notarizing officer. On the other hand, experience has shown the desirability of including, as standard practice, a specific waiver of responsibility in all authentications (§ 92.38) executed in connection with divorce proceedings.

The note from the embassy is so unusual that I suspect there must be a back story to explain why an ordinary disclaimer of responsibility, as outlined in the rule, is insufficient. Perhaps the Japanese authorities have expressed to the embassy unhappiness about false declarations in particular cases? In any event, I don’t think that the embassy’s explanation—civil status in the US is a matter of state law and the federal government has no information about citizens’ civil status—makes any sense.