Which U.S. states currently have anti‑mask statutes and what exact exceptions do they include?
Executive summary
Twenty‑three states and the District of Columbia maintain statutes that limit wearing masks in public, but those laws vary sharply in scope: some are narrow, criminalizing masking conducted with intent to commit a crime, while others are broader prohibitions with enumerated exceptions such as holidays, occupational safety, religious garb, theatrical performances and limited medical carve‑outs (ICNL database) [1]. Reporting and statutory summaries show recurring patterns—intent‑based bars, blanket bans with exceptions, and criminal‑enhancement provisions—yet no single source in the provided reporting supplies a definitive, up‑to‑the‑word list of every state statute and every exception, so the available analysis relies on the ICNL database and multiple state examples cited in contemporaneous summaries [1] [2] [3].
1. What “anti‑mask” statutes actually cover and how they differ
Anti‑mask statutes in the United States fall into three core types: general bans on masks in public with enumerated exceptions; statutes that prohibit masking when done with a particular intent (for example to conceal identity); and provisions that make it an offense to wear a mask while committing or intending to commit a crime—sometimes with enhanced penalties if the mask is used during the offense [1]. The ICNL, which compiled these categories in a 2025 survey, reports that the minority of states with such laws use these distinct approaches, and that many create First Amendment tensions when applied to protests or expressive conduct [1] [4].
2. How many states, and which ones are repeatedly cited in reporting
The most systematic reporting in the set says 23 states plus Washington, D.C. have statutes that limit face coverings in public; the ICNL’s state database is the source for that aggregate figure [1]. Individual state examples repeatedly cited across reporting include Virginia (added medical and emergency‑declaration exemptions), California, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Florida (noted for criminal‑intent or crime‑commission triggers), and Southern states like Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and West Virginia, where traditional‑holiday and occupational exceptions are common [2] [3] [5]. Because the supplied reporting does not publish a full, line‑by‑line inventory of every state statute and exact wording, this account highlights representative statutes and documented exceptions rather than claiming a complete state‑by‑state reproduction [1].
3. The common exceptions—and state examples that matter
Across statutes, exceptions that recur are: traditional holiday costumes such as Halloween or Mardi Gras; theatrical or masquerade performances; occupational and safety‑related coverings (trade, sport, motorcycle helmets); religious coverings; and specific medical exceptions—though medical exceptions are narrower in some states and may require documentation [1] [6] [3]. For instance, Virginia’s law expressly contemplates medical reasons and a governor’s emergency exemption, but Virginia has at times required a doctor’s note as the practical limitation on medical exemptions [2] [3]. Louisiana and Minnesota have been reported to add explicit exceptions for religious face coverings [4]. California, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Florida are identified in multiple summaries as states that criminalize wearing a mask in the course of committing or intending to commit a crime rather than banning all masking outright [2] [7].
4. How statutes are enforced and why wording matters
Enforcement and legal effect depend on statutory wording: an intent‑based statute requires prosecutors to show the wearer sought to conceal identity or intended to commit wrongdoing, whereas a blanket ban with enumerated exceptions can be enforced more mechanically and therefore risks broader discretionary application [1] [5]. Several commentators and trackers note new legislative proposals and amendments that would expand penalties—some bills would remove health exceptions or add sentence enhancements for crimes committed while masked—highlighting an active legislative landscape as of early 2026 [8] [9].
5. Constitutional tension, scrutiny and open questions
Legal scholars and civil‑liberties groups warn most of these laws raise First Amendment and equal‑protection concerns when applied to protests, anonymity and religious expression; the ICNL and other analysts argue many statutes lack explicit protections for expressive masking and therefore risk chilling protest activity and anonymity in an era of facial‑recognition surveillance [4] [10]. Lower court rulings have sometimes struck down or narrowed anti‑mask laws, and the constitutionality of many statutes remains contested in light of varying state language and enforcement practices; because the provided reporting does not include every court decision or current statute text, a definitive constitutional map by state cannot be produced here [11].