An anticipated judgment in US federal litigation – Hindu American Foundation (HAF) and others vs. Civil Rights Department (CRD) – was delivered on July 18, 2025. This case carries profound implications, not only for legal protections against caste-based discrimination in the United States but also for exposing how Hindu supremacist rhetoric weaponises religious rights to advance their supremacist agenda. Despite CRD removing caste-Hinduism references in December 2023, HAF filed a Second Amended Complaint seeking to declare CRD’s Cisco lawsuit unconstitutional. HAF attempted to stop CRD’s intervention in caste-based discrimination, an unprecedented move by those emboldened by their perceived monopoly over Hindu and Indian narratives.The July 18 judgment brought hope to caste-oppressed communities by establishing that CRD’s action against caste discrimination is legitimate state action. The case is not finding a remedy for an individual employee, but to ensure none of the employees’ rights are violated. The court also ruled that the Hindu American Foundation does not represent all Hindus, noting HAF failed to demonstrate its activities or interactions with the broader Hindu American community.HAF vs CRD connects directly with three other significant cases: Cisco vs CRD, Kumar vs CSU (California State University), and Bagal vs Sawant and City of Seattle. To understand the full scope of HAF vs CRD, we must examine its relationship with Cisco vs CRD and Kumar vs CSU, including their intertwining issues and timeline.The overall development can be understood through three distinct phases: first, from June 2020 to August 2022; second, from September 2022 to January 2024; and finally, from January 2024 to the present.Phase I: Foundation and Early Challenges (June 2020 – August 2022)In June 2020, California’s CRD filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against Cisco Systems alleging caste discrimination against a Dalit employee, with the case moving to Santa Clara Superior Court in October 2020.In November 2020, Cisco filed a motion for direct arbitration with the victim, bypassing CRD involvement. The company argued that an open jury trial would force disclosure of confidential materials the victim had worked on, potentially impacting company prospects. By January 2021, HAF filed a petition to join the case against CRD, alleging that linking caste with Hinduism violated the constitutional rights of Hindus in America.The state court ruled against Cisco’s arbitration proposal in February 2021, prompting Cisco to appeal. After nearly 18 months, in August 2022, the court again rejected Cisco’s arbitration request. The court stated that the state’s public policy protects all people’s right to employment without discrimination based on race, religion, coloUr, national origin, and other characteristics. The Department has independent authority to investigate discrimination complaints and sue violators, and cannot be forced into arbitration agreements it didn’t sign.It took nearly two years just to determine whether the case would proceed to jury trial.Phase II: Federal Litigation and Policy Challenges (September 2022 – January 2024)In September 2022, HAF sued CRD in federal court, arguing that linking caste with Hinduism could cause employers to discriminate against Hindu job applicants and create workplace tensions. They also claimed employers might illegally ask South Asian employees about their religious beliefs, violating First Amendment religious freedom protections.Simultaneously, in October 2022, two CSU professors – Sunil Kumar from CSU San Diego and Praveen Sinha from CSU Long Beach –sued CSU for including ‘caste’ in the university’s anti-discrimination policy implemented in January 2022. CSU serves approximately 500,000 students and employs 29,000 faculty members across 23 campuses throughout California. Although CSU’s policy did not explicitly link caste with Hinduism, the professors alleged that policy designers were influenced by the assumption that caste is inherently connected to Hinduism.In April 2023, individual managers Sundar and Ramana were dismissed from the Cisco vs CRD discrimination case under California law that provides immunity for managers in discrimination claims. CRD continued the case against Cisco alone, as California law distinguishes between discrimination (official employment actions by companies) and harassment (personal conduct that can make individuals liable).In August 2023, Judge Dale Drozd rejected HAF’s lawsuit against CRD, ruling that efforts to prevent caste-based discrimination did not violate Hindu workers’ rights. The judge called HAF’s argument that anti-caste enforcement would lead to religious accommodation requests for workplace discrimination “highly speculative and seemingly implausible.”HAF subsequently filed an amendment complaint including eight other individuals, notably Sundar and Ramana, whose alleged discriminatory actions in the Cisco case remained relevant despite their individual dismissal.In November 2023, Federal Judge Gary Klausner rejected the Kumar vs CSU lawsuit where professors argued the policy should use ‘class’ instead of ‘caste.’ The judge ruled that using the term “caste” shows no hostility toward religion since caste can be defined without reference to Hinduism. He also found that CSU’s anti-caste policy does not attempt to define Hinduism or disapprove of the religion.In December 2023, CRD removed references linking caste and Hinduism from its Cisco complaint, determining it wasn’t their burden to explain caste through religious frameworks. In January 2024, the state court rejected HAF’s attempt to join the Cisco vs CRD case, ruling that ending caste-based discrimination wouldn’t burden Hindu religious practice. The court found that HAF incorrectly characterised CRD’s action as defining Hinduism, noting that even erroneous religious characterisations in legal pleadings don’t unlawfully restrict religious practice.Phase III: Discovery and Final Resolution (January 2024 – present)In workplace settings, discussions may outwardly appear to focus on culture, festivals, movies, national policy, and current affairs, but beneath the surface, they often contain caste elements. While such discussions may not be inherently discriminatory, we cannot entirely dismiss their potential to create toxic and hostile environments for caste-oppressed individuals. Sometimes these conversations scaffold casteist atmospheres.Recognising this dynamic, in an unprecedented move, CRD requested Cisco’s internal communications containing specific caste-related terms like ‘Dalit,’ ‘brahmin,’ and ‘untouchable’ from January 2012 onward to understand how caste operates within the company. The initial broad request of 21 terms produced 348,000 documents, which Cisco said would cost $1.45 million to review before disclosure. On November 15, 2024, the court narrowed the search to specific terms and ordered Cisco to share those documents. This ruling advances the case and sets a precedent that could encourage corporations to adopt stronger anti-caste discrimination policies.In March 2025, the appellate court upheld the federal district court’s judgment in Kumar vs CSU. The order stated that CSU’s policy demonstrates no hostility toward Hinduism and does not stigmatise the religion; therefore, appellants suffered no spiritual injury.The July 18 victoryOn July 18th, 2025, one of the most anticipated judgments was delivered. HAF’s most ambitious project – preventing state intervention in caste discrimination cases – was decisively defeated. HAF contended that in caste discrimination cases, individuals should fight corporations independently, without the state’s representation. This approach is practically impossible. HAF’s spurious aim, disguised as religious freedom advocacy, would leave caste-oppressed individuals vulnerable, completely defenceless, and unprotected.Judge Dale Drozd affirmed that the department clearly sought relief benefiting multiple Cisco employees, evidenced by its request for permanent injunction ensuring compliance. HAF’s contention that the Department was acting as attorney for the complainant in the State Action was simply incorrect.The court rejected any further amendments to the case, deeming such amendments ‘futile.’ This leaves HAF with the option to approach the US Supreme Court for review, where acceptance chances are less than 2%.Looking forward: Hope and mobilisationThis judgment brings tremendous hope not only to caste-oppressed communities but also to anti-caste activists seeking to mobilise the broader Hindu population that supports laws banning caste-based discrimination. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s survey, ‘How Indian Americans Live: Results From the 2024 Indian American Attitudes Survey,’ revealed that 77% of Indian Americans support ‘new laws or regulations prohibiting discrimination based on an individual’s caste identity.’ The US federal court reflected this Indian majority’s voice.The July 18 judgment marks the beginning of the end for Hindu supremacist influence in the US, though this transformation will not occur automatically. Anti-caste and pro-democracy forces must unite to ensure Hindu supremacy’s demise in America.Karthikeyan Shanmugam is an IT professional based in Silicon Valley, California, USA. Ambedkar King Study Circle – the organisation he is a part of – has called for a case debriefing on August 9 in San Jose to educate anti-caste Indians about maintaining unity against forces that divide Hindus and Indians in the name of religion.