Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-37 (2026)

Ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.

(1949 Rev., S. 8376; P.A. 12-80, S. 100.)

History: P.A. 12-80 replaced penalty of a fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days or both with a class D misdemeanor.

Legislature intended to limit scope of section to commercial speech, as evidenced by its use of “advertisement”, which involves the marketing or sale of products, goods or services and section does not apply to personal, noncommercial speech. 346 C. 422.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2015–2023 · leading case: Xu v. Neubauer, 166 F. Supp. 3d 203 (D. Conn. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Xu v. Neubauer, 166 F. Supp. 3d 203 (D. Conn. 2015). · cites it 2× “He also alleges violation of the following Connecticut criminal statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-37 (b) (ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race), § 53a-48 (conspiracy), § 53a-49 (criminal attempt), § 53a-51 (classification of attempt and…”

Cerame v. Lamont (D. Conn. 2022). · cites it 38× “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-37 . Plaintiff Mario Cerame (“Cerame”), a Connecticut attorney, brings this pre-enforcement action pro se against defendants Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont (“the Governor”) and Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney Patrick J.”

Cerame v. Lamont, 346 Conn. 422 (Conn. 2023). · cites it 31× “, certified a question of law to this court concerning the applicability of General Statutes § 53-37 to the plain- tiff’s speech.”

Cerame v. Lamont (Conn. 2023). · cites it 30× “, certified a question of law to this court concerning the applicability of General Statutes § 53-37 to the plain- tiff’s speech.”

Cerame v. Bowler (D. Conn. 2022). “The Complaint alleges that “Cerame currently is challenging Connecticut General Statute § 53-37, a statute colloquially known as the ‘racial ridicule statute.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.