Sunil Kumar and Praveen Sinha are two faculty member at California State University (CSU). They are both of Indian descent and adherents of Hinduism.
In January 2022, CSU’s implemented an updated interim anti-discrimination policy, which it finalized in 2023. The updated policy explicitly prohibited discrimination based on various protected categories, including race, ethnicity, gender, disability, and religion. As part of the policy, CSU clarified that caste, color, and ancestry were already included within the protected category of race and ethnicity. The policy did not define “caste,” nor did it mention Hinduism. CSU issued a Q&A document explaining that CSU would analyze caste-based discrimination using the same framework as other forms of discrimination.
Kumar and Sinha sued Jolene Koester in her official capacity as Chancellor of CSU. They argued that the CSU’s decision to include “caste” as a protected category under its anti-discrimination policy unfairly associated Hinduism with a caste system, stigmatizing their religion and compelled them to self-censor religious discussions and practices. They brought claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, alleging violations of the Due Process Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Establishment Clause. They sought declaratory relief to prevent CSU from enforcing the “caste” provision of the policy.
The trial court initially dismissed the Kumar and Sinha’s Equal Protection claim for lack of standing and later dismissed their Free Exercise claim for failure to state a claim. The Due Process and Establishment Clause claims proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court ruled in CSU’s favor, finding that the Kumar and Sinha lacked standing on the Due Process claim, and that the Establishment Clause claim failed on the merits. The Kumar and Sinha appealed the dismissal of their Due Process, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clause claims.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the Kumar and Sinha failed to establish standing, which requires a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent. The Ninth Circuit applied a three-part test, which requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) an intention to engage in conduct protected by the Constitution; (2) that the conduct is arguably proscribed by the challenged law; and (3) that there exists a credible threat of enforcement.
On the Due Process claim, Kumar and Sinha contended that the policy was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to define “caste,” leaving them uncertain about what conduct is prohibited. The Ninth Circuit held that the Kumar and Sinha lacked standing because they did not demonstrate that any of their religious practices could be interpreted as caste discrimination or harassment under the policy. They had explicitly stated that they opposed caste discrimination and did not believe caste was part of Hinduism. The Ninth Circuit ruled that their fear of enforcement was speculative and insufficient to establish an injury.
On the Free Exercise claim, the Kumar and Sinha argued that the policy burdened their religious practices by associating Hinduism with caste. The Ninth Circuit found that they failed to show any actual burden on their religious exercise. Their objection to the policy was ideological rather than based on a concrete restriction on their ability to practice their religion. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that disagreement with a policy’s language or implications does not constitute a Free Exercise violation absent a substantial burden on religious practice.
On the Establishment Clause claim, Kumar and Sinha alleged that the policy improperly defined Hinduism by linking it to caste, thereby stigmatizing their religion. The Ninth Circuit recognized that Establishment Clause standing can be based on spiritual or psychological harm but found no evidence that CSU’s policy expressed hostility toward Hinduism. The Ninth Circuit noted that “caste” is a broad social concept that applies across multiple religions and cultures and is not uniquely associated with Hinduism. The trial court had found, based on the trial record, that the policy did not disparage or define Hinduism. The Ninth Circuit held that this factual determination was not clearly erroneous.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of all claims.
Kumar v. Koester (9th Cir. 2025) 131 F.4th 746.