\n<\/p>\n
U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro decided that refusing to wear a face mask is not protected by the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n
\u201cA question shadowing suits such as these is whether there is a First Amendment right to refuse to wear a protective mask as required by valid health and safety orders put in place during a recognized public health emergency. question shadowing suits such as these is whether there is a First Amendment right to refuse to wear a protective mask as required by valid health and safety orders put in place during a recognized public health emergency,\u201d Ambro wrote<\/a> in a February 5 ruling. \u201cLike all courts to address this issue, we conclude there is not.\u201d<\/p>\n The ruling came in response to cases filed by New Jersey residents who argued that refusing to wear face masks at school board meetings was an action protected under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n While refusing to wear a mask did show an \u201cintent to convey a particularized message,\u201d which is protected under the First Amendment, \u201cit is unlikely that a reasonable observer would understand her message simply from seeing her unmasked at the Board meeting,\u201d Ambro explained.<\/p>\n \u201cHow would attendees know that Murray-Nolan was unmasked not because she was medically exempt but because she intended to express her dismay with the Board\u2019s inaction related to unmasking of school children? They wouldn\u2019t, unless they were aware of her vocal protests predating her maskless appearance at the meeting.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge added that \u201cwearing a medical mask\u2014or refusing to do so\u2014is not the type of thing someone typically does as \u2018a form of symbolism.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n He compared refusing to wear a mask to refusing to pay taxes.<\/p>\n \u201cSkeptics are free to\u2014and did\u2014 voice their opposition through multiple means, but disobeying a masking requirement is not one of them. are free to\u2014and did\u2014 voice their opposition through multiple means, but disobeying a masking requirement is not one of them. One could not, for example, refuse to pay taxes to express the belief that \u2018taxes are theft.\u2019 Nor could one refuse to wear a motorcycle helmet as a symbolic protest against a state law requiring them.\u201d<\/p>\n Ronald Berutti, an attorney for the New Jersey residents, said they will petition the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n