Abstract
<p>This paper examines the legal conflict that arises when Connecticut public school students use physical force in lawful self-defense, addressing whether such conduct can trigger a disciplinary suspension under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233c. Drawing on Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-19 (the state self-defense statute) and § 10-233c (school suspension authority), we argue that students acting in justified self-defense should not be punished under school discipline rules. Section 53a-19 explicitly authorizes reasonable force to prevent imminent physical force, and courts have held that self-defense claims must be honored in criminal proceedings. By contrast, § 10-233c broadly permits suspension for student conduct that violates school policy or “endangers persons or property,” without explicit exemption for lawful self-defense. We interpret these statutes to require that no student be disciplined for conduct that is legally justified. Constitutional analysis (due process and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine) supports this result, as punishing lawful behavior would burden fundamental liberty interests. Anonymized hypotheticals illustrate how a victim defending against an attacker could nonetheless face unfair discipline absent a self-defense exception (no student names are given here in compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g). Policy considerations suggest that disciplining self-defense substantively undermines student safety. We conclude with recommendations for statutory or regulatory reform: for example, amending § 10-233c or Board of Education codes to explicitly exempt lawful self-defense, aligning school discipline policy with state law. In sum, Connecticut students have a statutory right to use reasonable force in self-defense, and disciplining them for doing so would conflict with that right.</p>