NORTH CAROLINA – Mask mandates are sparking new debates around balancing public health and personal liberties.

What You Need To Know


  • Generally, private businesses can mandate masks as long as the policy is equally enforced

  • Law experts don't believe mask mandates violate any constitutional rights

  • A 1905 Supreme Court case dealing with government powers during a pandemic is still relevant today

  • Most mask mandates do have a medical exemption if wearing one endangers your health

Videos of confrontations involving shoppers who think stores are robbing them of their rights are collecting millions of views online.

Legal experts say businesses on private property have been telling people what to wear for years. It's no different than a bar or restaurant with a dress code.

"If a business tried to impose a certain restriction and you oppose it, you have no right to enter that establishment," says Rick Su, a professor at UNC School of Law. "That's their private property. In fact, it can argued at that point you're trespassing."

Short of businesses enforcing a mask policy in a discriminatory way, there's not much of a case. But what if the order comes from an elected or public official?

"What we're usually looking for, is there a compelling governmental reason in order to protect some restriction or regulation?" Su said.

He believes the current pandemic meets that threshold.  

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed government powers during an outbreak in the 1905 case of Jacobson vs Massachusetts. A man sued the state after he was fined for refusing a mandatory small pox vaccination during an outbreak. He argued it violated his 14th Amendment right to liberty, but he lost in a 7-2 decision.

"A needle stuck to your arm in that particular case, and nonetheless we've upheld it in these cases because of the broader public interest," Su said.

The judges also said it's up to all of us to decide when a measure goes too far in the name of public safety. In delivering the majority decision, a justice wrote it's for the government, not the courts to settle policy disputes.