Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.)
Rep. Nancy Mace's pro se removal of Berg v. Bryant to federal court, filed January 29, 2026; assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC in the District of South Carolina.
On January 29, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace filed a pro se Notice of Removal removing Berg v. Bryant, No. 2025-CP-10-03124 (Charleston County Court of Common Pleas), to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, where it was assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC. The case was assigned to Senior District Judge B. Hoke Hamilton, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry.
Mace filed an Amended Notice of Removal on February 3, 2026, and a Supplemental Notice of Removal on January 23, 2026 (filed in the state court). The removal was filed from Mace's campaign office address (295 Seven Farms Drive, Suite C-186, Charleston, S.C. 29492) using a campaign email address.
All characterizations of the legal arguments below reflect the positions taken by the respective parties in their filed motions; they are not findings by this wiki or the court. The six-page notice itself (the document that opened the federal case) is reproduced below and is available as a PDF.
The Notice of Removal, as filed
Rep. Mace signed and filed the Notice of Removal pro se. The notice body is reproduced below in full; its 100-plus pages of attached state-court exhibits are omitted here. The original notice-body PDF is available here.
Page 1, "REPRESENTATIVE NANCY RUTH MACE'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL," stamped FILED January 29, 2026. Paragraph 1 removes "the Order to Show Cause and Motion for Civil Contempt" filed against her in the state action "[c]onsistent with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1446."
Page 2, Mace identifies the January 12, 2026 contempt motion (Exhibit A), the state-court docket sheet (Exhibit B) and the Gag Order and its extension (Exhibits C, D), then argues removal is "appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)" because the contempt motion "arises out of statements that she has made in her official capacity as a Member of Congress," and asserts the removal was "timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1)."
Page 3, the signature block: "/s/ Rep. Nancy Mace / Pro Se," filed from her Seven Farms Drive office in Charleston.
Removal Timing
Mace was served the Third-Party Complaint in the state action on November 20, 2025. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a defendant has 30 days from receipt of the initial pleading to remove. Mace's removal was filed on January 29, 2026, approximately 70 days after service.
Mace's position (per her ECF 19 Opposition to Remand) is that Bryant's January 12, 2026 Motion for Civil Contempt constituted a new and separately removable paper that restarted the 30-day clock under § 1446(b)(3), and that the entire case was inextricably intertwined with her congressional duties.
Bryant's reply (ECF 21) contests the timeliness of the removal, arguing that Mace's own December 12, 2025 Answer had already asserted FTCA / Westfall / Speech or Debate defenses, which, Bryant argues, demonstrates that the federal basis for removal was known at the time of service.
Basis for Removal Asserted
Mace's Notice of Removal asserted federal-officer removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. I, § 6), arguing that her conduct was undertaken in her official capacity as a Member of Congress.
Bryant opposed removal and moved for remand, arguing that the removal was untimely and that Mace's relevant conduct was personal, not official. In support, Bryant cited the Pittman affidavit filed in a related matter, in which Mace's former housekeeper attested that Mace's inquiries about Bryant were "strictly personal" and had "no connection to her official duties."
State-Court Effect
Following the filing of the Notice of Removal on January 21, 2026 (state-court notice), Judge Hocker was informed by letter dated January 22, 2026. The state court proceedings in No. 2025-CP-10-03124 continued on matters not affected by the removal notice, including a January 13, 2026 Supplemental Gag Order and other pending motions.
Selected Federal Docket Entries
| ECF No. | Date | Filing | Party | |---------|------|--------|-------| | 1 | 2026-01-29 | Notice of Removal | Mace (pro se) | | 3 | 2026-02-03 | Amended Notice of Removal (Exhibit A = state-court record) | Mace (pro se) | | 7 | (filed) | Motion to Remand | Bryant | | 19 | 2026-03-23 | Opposition to Motion to Remand | Mace (pro se) | | 21 | 2026-03-26 | Reply in Support of Motion to Remand | Bryant |
Status: Motion to Remand pending before the District Court as of last docket review.
Sources & Related Coverage
The filing itself: Representative Nancy Ruth Mace's Notice of Removal (PDF, 6 pages, notice body; exhibits omitted), filed pro se January 29, 2026, removing the Order to Show Cause and Motion for Civil Contempt from Berg v. Bryant, No. 2025-CP-10-03124, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, where the action was docketed as No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC.
The federal docket, Case No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC, is available on PACER (pacer.uscourts.gov). The underlying state action, No. 2025-CP-10-03124, is searchable on the South Carolina Judicial Branch Public Index at publicindex.sccourts.org. All filings cited are public court records.
See also: Berg v. Bryant (2025-CP-10-03124)
Related Dispatches
Court appoints former Judge Kristi Harrington as third-party neutral to sort the 11,000+ disputed files in Mace's Google Drive
On June 16, 2026, Judge Donald B. Hocker appointed Kristi Harrington, a Charleston attorney and former South Carolina Circuit Court judge, to serve as a 'third-party neutral' in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2025-CP-10-2671), one of the cluster of cases tied to Rep. Nancy Mace and her former fiance, Patrick Bryant. Harrington's task is to review the more than 11,000 electronic files in what the court calls 'Mace's Google Drive,' files that both Mace and Bryant claim to own, and decide which, if any, must be turned over in discovery. The court split her fees between the two camps, warned the volume could make the process 'very cost-prohibitive,' and entered the order over Mace's objection. The order makes no finding on privilege, admissibility, ownership, or wrongdoing; the underlying allegations remain contested and unproven.
Under a gag order barring 'any comment about any aspect of this case,' Mace uses her televised concession speech to talk about 'predators that got away in my case'
On the night of June 9, 2026, after conceding the South Carolina Republican gubernatorial primary, Nancy Mace told her Charleston election-night crowd, and a live television audience, that she had talked to Attorney General Alan Wilson 'about my case' and would help his administration ensure that 'predators that got away in my case … we finally put criminals behind bars.' Mace is a third-party defendant in Berg v. Bryant, where a November 26, 2025 gag order bars every party from 'making or publishing any comment about any aspect of this case' or about any party or person connected to it, and a January 12, 2026 civil-contempt motion over her earlier public statements remains pending. Both orders are reproduced in full below. Mace contends the gag order is unconstitutional; all underlying allegations are unproven and contested, and no court has ruled on the June 9 remarks.
Gretchen Carlson, who helped write the Speak Out Act, files a sworn declaration backing Alexis Berg
On June 8, 2026, Alexis Berg's counsel filed a reply brief in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (No. 2025-CP-10-2671) arguing that the federal Speak Out Act makes the non-disparagement clause ADW is suing on judicially unenforceable, because the dispute before the court involves sexual-assault allegations. Attached was a sworn declaration from Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox News anchor whose 2016 case helped inspire the Act, who states she has met with Berg and that 'this is exactly the situation we fought to address,' and offers to testify. ADW argues the Act does not apply. The motion is undecided; the underlying allegations are contested and denied.
In a letter to the judge overseeing her gag order, Mace calls the court a 'Kangaroo Court' and moves the contempt matter to federal court: 'I will not be SILENCED.'
On January 21, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace wrote directly to Judge Donald B. Hocker, the Charleston County circuit judge presiding over Berg v. Bryant, the case in which she is a third-party defendant under a gag order, calling the court a 'Kangaroo Court,' declaring the gag order unconstitutional, and announcing she was removing the contempt proceeding against her to federal court. Mace wrote the letter pro se, after she says she had discharged her counsel; it was stamped FILED on the state docket January 22, 2026. The full five-page filing is reproduced below. The allegations underlying the litigation are disputed and contested; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
Bryant moves for sanctions over 'fake, AI generated citations' in Mace legal brief, and a cover-up that compounded them
Patrick Bryant filed a Rule 11 sanctions motion in the Berg v. Bryant litigation alleging that Rep. Nancy Mace's attorney submitted AI-fabricated case citations in a court brief, then, the motion alleges, attempted to conceal the error by filing an amended brief that itself allegedly continued to use fabricated citations. Bryant's motion documents the alleged cover-up paragraph by paragraph. Mace and her attorney D. Craig Brown dispute the allegations; no court has ruled on the motion.
While the gag order holds, Mace promotes her 'Predators Act' as 'deeply personal'
On January 11, 2026, with the Berg v. Bryant gag order in effect and days before the court's supplemental order, Mace promoted her 'Preventing Prosecutors from Protecting Predators Act' from her verified @RepNancyMace account, calling it 'deeply personal' and tying it to 'trauma' she says she experienced 'two years ago.' Opposing counsel flagged the post as a continued public statement about matters connected to the case.
While the gag order holds, Mace proposes Aggravated Voyeurism Act and ties it to her 'personal experiences' as a victim
On January 3, 2026, with the Berg v. Bryant gag order in effect, Rep. Nancy Mace announced the Aggravated Voyeurism Act at the South Carolina statehouse and publicly tied it to her 'personal experiences' as a self-described victim of voyeurism. The announcement was not cited in the contempt motion filed January 12, 2026; it is presented here as a public statement made during the order's effective period. Mace disputes the validity and scope of the gag order.
A pinned post viewed 20,000+ times: Mace calls South Carolina a 'pedophile paradise' while the gag order is in effect
On December 31, 2025, from her verified @RepNancyMace account, Mace published and pinned a post attacking the South Carolina Attorney General, calling the state a 'pedophile paradise' at a time when a gag order in Berg v. Bryant was in effect. The post reportedly re-shared content from her December 27, 2025 video. A contempt motion filed January 12, 2026 attaches it as Exhibit 9 and notes the post had been viewed more than 20,000 times. Mace disputes the validity of the gag order and its application to her.
Bowman's lawyer reports a December 27 Instagram video to the judge as a gag-order violation
On December 27, 2025, while the Berg v. Bryant gag order was in effect, Mace posted a video on Instagram from @repnancymace; counsel for co-defendant Eric Bowman, Robert Merting, emailed Judge Hocker on December 29 to report it, and Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion attaches it as Exhibits 5-7, contending it referred to Bowman by name in terms implying criminal conduct 'that has not been alleged in this litigation.'
Bryant's counsel to Berg's attorney: 'Describing in detail what I contend is confidential before the Order is in place would defeat the very purpose of having a confidentiality order'
On December 22, 2025, Patrick Bryant's attorneys at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani filed a seven-page opposition to Berg's motion for a blanket confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124. The brief argues that the photographs and recordings Berg now seeks to seal were already made public by Rep. Nancy Mace, with Berg's consent, during Mace's February and May 2025 congressional speeches. Bryant's counsel agrees that Berg's medical and therapy records should be confidential, but opposes a blanket designation. Attached as Exhibit A is a 23-page compilation of counsel emails documenting a six-week dispute over what, if anything, required protection. All allegations in the underlying litigation are disputed and contested; Bryant denies the claims against him; Berg, Mace, and all named parties deny Bryant's allegations; no matter has been adjudicated.
In her own sworn Answer, Mace admits she 'placed an air tag on Bryant's car for one day in August 2023'
In her December 19, 2025 Answer to Patrick Bryant's Third-Party Complaint, Rep. Nancy Mace admits under oath that she placed a tracking device on Bryant's car and attempted to access his laptop, while denying Bryant's allegation that she intended to weaponize what she found. The filing is Mace's own account, in her own words, on the public court record.
While under the gag order, Mace's congressional office sends a mass newsletter about the case: 'I WILL NOT be silenced.'
On December 1, 2025, while the Berg v. Bryant gag order was in effect, a mass email newsletter from Rep. Nancy Mace's congressional office, headlined 'Rep. Nancy Mace says 2 more women accuse her ex-fiancé of abuse,' named Patrick Bryant, recited unproven allegations, and declared 'I WILL NOT be silenced.' Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion attaches the newsletter as Exhibit 8, contending it violated the gag order.
Two days into the gag order, Mace posts: 'IMPEACH ALL CORRUPT JUDGES', 'especially including those in South Carolina SPECIFICALLY.'
On November 28, 2025, two days after Judge Hocker entered the sua sponte gag order in Berg v. Bryant, Mace posted from her verified @RepNancyMace account calling to impeach 'all corrupt judges,' adding in the same thread 'especially including those in South Carolina SPECIFICALLY.' Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion makes the post Exhibit 4 and contends it violated the gag order.
Under four hours after the gag order reached her lawyer, Mace posts about a co-defendant's bond: 'Not nearly enough.'
On November 26, 2025, the same day Judge Donald B. Hocker entered a sua sponte gag order in Berg v. Bryant and circulated it to all counsel at 2:23 p.m. Rep. Nancy Mace replied at 6:43 p.m. from her verified @RepNancyMace account to a post reporting that co-defendant Eric Bowman had been granted bond on domestic-violence and harassment charges, writing: 'Not nearly enough. Very concerned for the safety of his victims. Keeping them in my prayers tonight.' A contempt motion filed January 12, 2026 attaches the post as Exhibit 3 and contends it violated the order within hours of its issuance; Mace disputes both the motion and the validity of the order, calling it unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Patrick Bryant: 'Today I authorized my attorneys to file a temporary restraining order against Nancy Ruth Mace'
On November 17, 2025, Judge Donald B. Hocker entered an order in Berg v. Bryant ending pseudonym use in the case, ruling that the identities of the plaintiff and a witness were already known to the public. Bryant announced a temporary restraining order motion the same day.
Mace's own motion shows she signed a quitclaim deed to her ex-fiancé on Feb. 13, 2025, three days after accusing him of crimes on the House floor
Mace's June 27, 2025 motion to enforce her settlement with Brendan (Patrick) Bryant documents that she executed a quitclaim deed transferring the beach house to him on Feb. 13, 2025, days after her Feb. 10 floor speech, while their property settlement was still being carried out.
Text messages show draft complaint revised line by line, with edits including: 'change statehouse floor to floor of the United States House of Representatives'
Exhibit E to Bryant's December 22, 2025 opposition to a confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant is a set of text-message screenshots between a contact identified as 'N M' and Alexis Berg, dated Monday, May 26, 2025. The thread includes an attachment titled 'Proposed Complaint, Ali's edits.docx' (228 KB), followed by a series of messages that walk through the draft complaint bullet by bullet, proposing specific textual changes. Bryant contends in the filing that these texts show Rep. Nancy Mace was 'actively drafting and revising the allegations' in Berg's complaint. Berg and Mace deny improper coordination; Berg's counsel has described any such suggestion as baseless. The litigation is ongoing and the allegations are unproven.
Exhibit F: The Britton Texts Bryant Says Show No Evidence Was Ever Delivered
Attached to Bryant's December 22, 2025 public opposition to a confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant, Exhibit F is a set of text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg spanning March through May 2025. Bryant contends the messages show that Britton refused to provide Berg with any promised evidence of the alleged assault. Berg and Britton deny wrongdoing; Berg's counsel has called any suggestion of improper coordination baseless. The exhibit pages carry a CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by Berg's counsel, and the confidentiality dispute is itself before the court.
Mace's own defamation complaint puts her House-floor accusations, and the men's furious replies, into the public record
Suing Eric Bowman for defamation on May 12, 2025, Mace's complaint confirms she 'identified four individuals' from the House floor and reproduces, verbatim, the very accusations she calls false, including claims she steered VA contracts and 'destroy[ed] innocent men with zero evidence, zero charges.'
Ten months before accusing him from the House floor, Mace sued her ex-fiancé to split the beach house they owned together
On April 2, 2024, Mace filed a partition action against Brendan (Patrick) Bryant to divide or sell a jointly owned Isle of Palms beach house. Her own complaint records that she and the man she would later accuse of crimes each held 'an undivided one half' interest in the property.