There are therefor two lines of arguments.  One on the effectiveness of masks to protect both yourself and others from transmission of sarscov, which it effectively does not.  The second line is individual: as the wearing of a mask has a certain effect in your body, that may be worse or not in somebody else. Unreasonable and burdensome is related to individual circumstance.  It may lead then on to several different legal claims.  And if in the individual group the damage claims are big enough, a class action may be warranted.  This takes careful preparation and demonstration.  The long term effects are not even visible. And it is not the first time .gov has promulgated mandates with disastrous consequences, that needed remediation on taxpayer dime.  And this latter issue needs to be addressed to.  Every mandate/law needs to adhere at least to these three considerations:   target oriented proportional subsidiarity  target oriented: the measures need to exactly do what was intended. not intended consequences are also pack and parcel of the consideration.  proportional: the measure needs to be in line with the actual danger in relation to all other governmental responsibilities.  subsidiarity: the least intrusive measure needs to be taken, basically, are there different measures available to to reach the same goal.  These considerations apply to both the measure and the period for which the measure is imposed.  The reason these consideration should be made is because the right to liberty, life and pursuit of happiness are paramount for a well functioning republic. Also the 10A requires not stepping on or trashing reserved rights.  So striking a balance between state interest and  individual liberty is not an easy task. This requires careful deliberation. FIOA may proof helpful.  Bit I also have seen in certain jurisdictions that foia or equivalents do not ( fully) apply to emergencies.