In Bagal v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, (3rd Cir., Oct. 14, 2026), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing of a suit alleging that Rutgers University discriminated against Hindus. The court said in part:
Bagal’s complaint stemmed from an August 2024 report issued by a Rutgers University Task Force ... which recommended that the university include “caste” as a protected category in Rutgers’ Policy on Discrimination and Harassment... Rutgers did not adopt the Report’s recommendation and did not add caste to the Policy because Rutgers concluded that caste-based discrimination was already covered by the Policy’s prohibition of discrimination based on religion, ancestry, national origin, and race....
... Bagal’s alleged injury for his First Amendment free exercise claim is that he has been inhibited from practicing his religious beliefs. But he cannot establish standing “simply by claiming [he] experienced a ‘chilling effect’ that resulted from a governmental policy that does not regulate, constrain, or compel any action on [his] part.”... Because the Report has not been adopted into Policy, has not been enforced, and has not been discussed by the defendants in any of Bagal’s engagements with them, he also lacks standing for his Establishment Clause claim....
Bagal similarly lacks standing for his Equal Protection, Due Process, and remaining statutory discrimination claims....
