Mask Mandate Violations: What Laws Am I Breaking?

The question of whether or not to wear a mask has been a contentious issue during the COVID-19 pandemic, with some governments mandating their use in public spaces to curb the spread of the virus. While many people have complied with these mask mandates, others have refused, citing reasons such as anxiety or medical conditions. In some cases, individuals who refuse to wear masks have been charged with disorderly conduct or faced other penalties. The enforcement of mask mandates has varied across different states and countries, with some places imposing stricter penalties than others. Recently, there has also been a push for mask bans in certain states, which would make it illegal to wear a mask in certain public places, with the aim of preventing people from concealing their identities while committing crimes or participating in protests.

Wearing a mask in stores

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, wearing a mask in stores has been a topic of discussion and debate. While some people argue that wearing a mask is an effective way to slow the spread of the virus, others have expressed discomfort and resistance to the idea of wearing masks in public spaces. This has led to varying laws and guidelines regarding mask-wearing in different states and countries.

In the United States, for example, there have been mandates and recommendations from both state and local governments, as well as individual businesses, regarding the wearing of masks in stores. Some states, such as Pennsylvania, had a mandatory face mask law enacted by Governor Tom Wolf, which required anyone entering a store to wear a mask while shopping. However, there have also been instances where law enforcement authorities, such as the NYPD, have urged store owners to request that customers not wear masks to help with crime-fighting efforts and suspect identification.

It is important to note that the laws and guidelines regarding mask-wearing in stores may vary depending on location and the specific circumstances. While some states or local jurisdictions may have lifted mask mandates for fully vaccinated individuals, others may still require masks to be worn in certain settings, such as healthcare facilities or where mandated by state or local ordinances.

In addition, there may be exemptions for individuals who cannot wear masks due to medical or other reasons. These exemptions are usually outlined in the relevant legislation or guidelines, and individuals may not be required to provide proof of their exemption. However, it is important for individuals to be aware of the specific laws and guidelines in their area to ensure they are complying with the requirements.

While most people adhere to mask-wearing guidelines, there have been instances of individuals refusing to wear masks in stores. This has sometimes led to confrontations with store staff and, in some cases, charges being pressed. For example, in Pennsylvania, a man was charged with disorderly conduct and simple assault after refusing to wear a mask inside a grocery store, even though he had a doctor's note stating that masks caused him anxiety.

Disorderly conduct

In Pennsylvania, under Title 18 § 5503(a), a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or by recklessly creating a risk of such circumstances, they:

• Engage in fighting or threatening or non-violent tumultuous behaviour;
• Make an unreasonable noise;
• Use obscene language or make an obscene gesture; or
• Create a hazardous or physically offensive condition.

In New Jersey, disregarding the mandatory face mask requirement and social distancing will likely lead to disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offences, which are similar to Pennsylvania's summary offences.

Masked harassment

In 2025, state legislators in New York introduced a bill that would create a new crime: "masked harassment". This bill was introduced in response to a wave of antisemitic incidents and aimed to curb the use of masks to anonymously threaten and harass Jews. The bill specifically targets individuals who wear masks with the "primary purpose of menacing or threatening violence against another person" or "placing another person or group of persons in reasonable fear for their physical safety".

The original version of the bill would have directly banned mask-wearing in public gatherings, but due to opposition from disability rights advocates, criminal justice reformers, health care workers, and civil liberties groups, the bill was revised. The new version of the bill creates the violation-level penalty of "masked harassment" and expands the definition of aggravated harassment to include mask-wearing during physical attacks.

While the bill's supporters argue that it addresses masked intimidation while respecting the First Amendment and taking into account public health and safety concerns, opponents worry about its potential chilling effect on individuals who wear masks for legitimate reasons. They also raise concerns about disparate enforcement and the potential for the law to be abused through racial profiling and pretextual policing, particularly targeting Black Americans.

The debate around mask-wearing laws is complex and multifaceted, balancing the need for public safety and the protection of vulnerable groups with the right to anonymity and free expression. As of 2025, the New York bill has not been passed into law, and similar debates are taking place in other states such as North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas.

Aggravated harassment

In New York, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would increase penalties for mask-wearing. The bill does not constitute a straight-up ban on mask-wearing but would create the low-level crime of "masked harassment". The violation-level penalty would specifically target someone who harasses another while wearing a mask for the "primary purpose of menacing or threatening violence".

The legislation would also expand the definition of aggravated harassment in the second degree to include hitting or threatening to hit someone while wearing a mask for purposes related to masked harassment. Aggravated harassment is a Class A misdemeanour that could result in one year of imprisonment.

The bill includes exceptions for wearing masks for medical and religious purposes, holidays, performing arts, sporting competitions, and occupational safety, such as a welder wearing a welding mask.

Supporters of the bill argue that it is necessary to prevent hate-filled protests, acts of vandalism, and other crimes committed by individuals wearing masks to conceal their identities. Opponents, however, argue that the bill could have a chilling effect on people who wear masks for legitimate health or safety reasons and that it may be selectively enforced in a racially biased manner.

In Pennsylvania, individuals who refuse to wear a face mask can be charged with disorderly conduct, which can be classified as a misdemeanour of the third degree or a summary charge. However, it is important to note that the prosecution must prove that the individual intended to cause harm or inconvenience, and ignorance of the law may be a valid defence.

Protesting laws

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals who refuse to wear masks may be charged with disorderly conduct, as seen in Pennsylvania. However, the focus of your query is on protesting laws, so let's delve into that specific aspect.

Mask Bans

Mask bans aim to prohibit individuals from covering their faces during protests. Proponents of these bans argue that masks can be used to evade identification by law enforcement, making it challenging to investigate and prosecute crimes. Additionally, masks may be perceived as intimidating to bystanders and can embolden criminals. However, critics argue that mask bans infringe on the right to anonymous protesting and can disproportionately impact marginalized groups.

Anti-Mask Laws

Anti-mask laws, on the other hand, create new crimes or penalties specifically related to wearing masks during protests. For example, New York introduced the concept of "masked harassment," which refers to wearing a mask to menace or threaten violence against another person. These laws aim to address the concerns of law enforcement while still allowing for legitimate mask-wearing, such as for health, religious, or cultural reasons.

The debate surrounding protesting laws and the wearing of masks is complex and multifaceted. While there are valid arguments for both mask bans and anti-mask laws, it is essential to consider the potential consequences for protesters, especially those from marginalized communities, and to ensure that any legislation upholds constitutional rights and does not enable discriminatory enforcement.

Frequently asked questions