When I walk through Jackson Heights, Brooklyn, or stroll past the tech offices in Manhattan, I see the America that drew me here as a student, a place where birth shouldn't determine your future.
Yet, beneath this veneer of opportunity lies an uncomfortable truth: caste discrimination thrives in New York's boardrooms, classrooms, and neighbourhoods. The ancient hierarchy that my ancestors carried from South Asia persists here, manifesting in whispered surname checks, workplace exclusions, and housing denials that would shock most New Yorkers.
This reality makes the current moment in Albany unprecedented. Assembly Bill A6920 and Senate Bill S6531, championed respectively by Assembly member Steven Raga, the first Filipino American elected to New York's legislature and Senator James Sanders Jr, a veteran economic justice advocate from Queens, would add caste as a protected category under New York's Human Rights Law.
Together, these bills represent more than legislative housekeeping; they embody New York's historic commitment to expanding civil rights protections for the most vulnerable.
A Perfect Storm of Legal Momentum
Three converging developments make this New York's defining moment for caste equity. First, federal courts have definitively rejected constitutional challenges to anti-caste protections. On 18 July, 2025, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California delivered a landmark ruling dismissing the Hindu American Foundation's lawsuit against California's Civil Rights Department.
The court called HAF's religious freedom arguments "entirely unpersuasive" and noted the organisation's contradictory stance claiming caste isn't central to Hinduism, while simultaneously arguing that caste protections violate Hindu religious rights.
This federal precedent creates what legal scholars are calling "judicial federalism in caste law" a framework where federal courts build constitutional protection for caste equity ahead of state legislation. The court explicitly affirmed that states have full authority to prosecute caste discrimination without infringing on religious liberty. For New York legislators, this ruling eliminates the primary legal obstacle that derailed California Governor Gavin Newsom's veto of SB 403 in October 2023.
Second, corporate America has quietly paved the way. Following the groundbreaking 2020 Cisco lawsuit, where California's Civil Rights Department sued the tech giant for allegedly enabling caste discrimination against a Dalit engineer by higher-caste managers major corporations have updated their policies. Apple explicitly banned caste discrimination globally, while Amazon and Google added broader "ancestry" protections. However, many firms still rely on vague categories rather than explicitly naming caste, leaving enforcement gaps that state legislation would close.
Third, Seattle's pioneering 2023 ordinance has provided crucial implementation data. As the first US jurisdiction to ban caste discrimination, Seattle created a legal template that New York can adapt. The Seattle Office for Civil Rights has successfully processed complaints under the ordinance, demonstrating that explicit caste protections are both enforceable and constitutionally sound.
Why New York's Demographics Demand Action
The numbers tell the story. New York City hosts 1.5 million Asian residents 16 percent of the city's population with Indians comprising the largest South Asian group. The metropolitan area contains an estimated 710,000 to 720,000 Indian-origin residents, the largest South Asian concentration outside the subcontinent.
While precise demographic breakdowns by caste remain limited, research indicates that dominant castes comprise over 90 percent of Indian migrants, leaving marginalised caste communities vastly underrepresented yet still numbering in the tens of thousands across New York."
This isn't an abstract policy it's lived experience. Though comprehensive statistics remain elusive, Cornell Law School researchers document emerging patterns of caste-based exclusion across New York's workplaces, educational institutions, and housing market.
Their research details testimonies that mirror concerns whispered in my own community, employers making hiring decisions based on surname reveals, colleagues excluding Dalit engineers from informal networks, and landlords subtly screening tenants for caste markers. In Queens, where 28 council districts now have Asian populations exceeding 10 percent, these patterns affect entire neighborhoods.
Confronting the Critics
Opposition voices raise predictable objections. Some argue that existing "ancestry" protections suffice, but California's Civil Rights Department found that explicitly naming caste shortened investigations and improved settlement outcomes by making harm legible to lawyers and judges. Others claim the legislation unfairly targets Hindus, but courts consistently reject this argument.
Caste hierarchies appear across South Asian religions among Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and Buddhists, making this a social justice issue, not a religious persecution campaign.
The federal court's July ruling directly addressed these concerns, noting that caste protections mirror existing anti-discrimination frameworks without singling out any faith community. Just as New York's anti-semitism laws protect Jewish communities without impugning Christianity, caste protections safeguard vulnerable populations without maligning Hinduism.
What Passage Would Mean
If enacted, A6920 and S6531 would create concrete pathways for redress. Employees could report managers who demand caste information during hiring or exclude colleagues from team activities based on perceived hierarchy.
Tenants denied housing after landlords research their surnames would have clear legal recourse. Students facing caste-coded harassment would find school administrators equipped with specific tools to investigate and resolve complaints.
Beyond individual remedies, the legislation sends a powerful civic message: New York's celebrated diversity includes those relegated for millennia to society's margins.
As pioneers in LGBTQ+ rights activism since the 1969 Stonewall uprising and the first state to outlaw hair texture discrimination in 2019, New York has repeatedly expanded equality's frontier. Enshrining caste protections continues this tradition while providing a model for states from Illinois to New Jersey, where similar measures are percolating.
A Personal and Political Imperative
Coming from a marginalised community and navigating New York's promise and contradictions, I know firsthand how invisible hierarchies constrain opportunity. When prominent tech workers like those in the 2020 Cisco case must endure workplace discrimination based on ancient prejudices, when 250 Dalit engineers across Silicon Valley including 30 women report systematic exclusion and harassment, the problem demands legislative intervention, not continued silence.
The movement for caste equity represents more than protecting South Asian Americans—it embodies America's foundational promise that birth cannot dictate worth.
With federal courts blessing caste protections, corporate policies already evolving, and Seattle proving implementation works, Albany faces a rare opportunity to place New York at the forefront of the nation's next civil rights chapter.
The question isn't whether caste belongs in our anti-bias laws, but how quickly our lawmakers will act. In a year when legal precedent, corporate precedent, and moral precedent align, New York's moment is now.
The city that has consistently outlawed hate should not hesitate to outlaw caste. For students like me who came here believing in American ideals of equality, New York has the chance to prove those ideals aren't just rhetoric, they're actionable promises backed by the full force of law.