AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE WEARING OF MASKS IN A PUBLIC PLACE; TO DEFINE TERMS; TO CREATE EXEMPTIONS; TO PLACE A LIMITATION ON ENFORCEMENT; TO CREATE PENALTIES; TO PROVIDE FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Senate Bill 2798 would make it unlawful in Mississippi for a person wearing a “mask” to enter, be present, or appear in an outdoor public place, with “mask” defined broadly to include any face covering, device, or hood that conceals the wearer’s identity. The bill applies to public ways and publicly owned or maintained outdoor grounds and buildings, and it is framed as a general prohibition on anonymous public masking.
The bill creates several exemptions. It would not apply to children under 14, adults 60 and older, people wearing masks for health or safety reasons, people wearing masks for celebratory, holiday, recreational, or cultural events where masks are customary, people using gas masks in drills or emergencies, or people whose mask use is protected by the state or federal constitution, including religious exercise. It also bars law enforcement from stopping or detaining someone solely because they are wearing a mask.
If enacted, SB2798 would add a new criminal offense to Mississippi law targeting masked presence in outdoor public places and publicly controlled spaces. It would authorize a fine of up to $500, up to 90 days in jail, or both, and increase penalties to up to $1,000 and six months in jail if the person was committing or attempting a crime of violence while masked. The bill would take effect July 1, 2026, and includes severability language to preserve the rest of the law if part of it is struck down.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed to address anonymity in public spaces while preserving exceptions for health, safety, age, cultural events, and constitutional rights, suggesting an attempt to balance enforcement with limited carveouts.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the mask ban and its interaction with public health, free expression, and religious liberty. Critics could argue that the definition of “mask” is broad enough to cover common face coverings, while supporters may emphasize the exemptions and the prohibition on stop-and-detain solely for mask wearing. The enhanced penalty for masked conduct during a violent crime may also be a focal point, as it ties the bill to public safety and criminal enforcement.