Mace v. Bowman
Defamation suit filed May 12, 2025 by Rep. Nancy Mace against Eric Bowman over posts on X. The case was stayed by consent June 2, 2026; on July 6, 2026 Mace, now proceeding pro se, moved to lift the stay so Bowman's fully-briefed motion to dismiss can be decided.
Rep. Nancy Mace filed this defamation per se action on May 12, 2025, alleging that posts published by Eric Bowman on the social-media platform X were false and defamatory. Bowman is appearing pro se and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying the filing fee) by court order dated July 9, 2025. All allegations in the complaint are the contentions of the filing party and are not findings of fact; Bowman has denied Mace's claims and moved to dismiss.
Assigned to Judge Hocker by the Supreme Court
This case is one of six related Charleston County matters placed under the Honorable Donald B. Hocker by a single order of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, signed by Chief Justice John W. Kittredge on August 27, 2025 and e-filed September 2, 2025. The order vests Judge Hocker with "exclusive jurisdiction to hear and dispose of" the cases, including this one, Case No. 2025-CP-10-02733. See the Judge Hocker profile for the full order and the list of all six consolidated matters.
The operative order vesting Judge Hocker with exclusive jurisdiction over the related cases, signed by Chief Justice John W. Kittredge, Columbia, August 27, 2025. The full order (PDF, 3 pages) lists all six consolidated matters.
The Complaint, as filed
The complaint is reproduced below in part. The full 18-page complaint body, with the names of private non-parties redacted, is hosted here; the posts Mace attached as exhibits are shown in the next section.
Page 1, the caption and "Nature of the Case." Mace, as plaintiff, alleges Bowman "repeatedly and maliciously defamed" her through posts on X. Bowman denies the allegations and has moved to dismiss.
Page 17, the close of the allegations and the prayer for relief.
The exhibits: the posts Mace is suing over
Mace attached ten exhibits to her complaint, screenshots of the posts she pleads are "objectively and demonstrably false" and is suing Bowman over. They are reproduced below from the public court file. Nothing here treats their contents as true; these are the statements Mace alleges are defamatory, and Bowman denies liability and has moved to dismiss. The names of private individuals who are not parties to this lawsuit have been redacted, and five exhibits whose substance is a private non-party's photograph or personal allegations about people outside this case are withheld (see the note that follows).
Exhibit 4. Mace alleges this post falsely asserts she illicitly influenced the award of VA technology modernization contracts to connected companies through her seat on the Subcommittee on Technology Modernization. Private non-party names redacted.
Exhibit 5. The post claims Mace "lied on the House floor," "used Capitol Police to go after an innocent ex-staffer," and "helped her VA contractor friends cash in." Mace pleads these statements are false. The embedded clip is from a public congressional hearing.
Exhibit 6. Posted before a Harvard appearance, it lists questions to put to Mace, among them what contracts she helped a (now redacted) VA contractor secure through the VA Technology Subcommittee. Mace alleges the post is false; a private non-party name is redacted.
Exhibit 8. The post notes Mace "just got served with a defamation and libel lawsuit from Brian Musgrave" and speculates about "unnamed co-conspirators." Mace pleads the post is false; private non-party names and one slur are redacted. The image shows Mace beside the "PREDATORS" poster she herself circulated.
Exhibit 9. The post Mace quotes most prominently in her complaint. It alleges she "engaged in illegal hacking, disseminating classified information, embezzling public funds, and steering VA contracts to her close associates," and "blackmailed, conspired, and lied to law enforcement." Mace pleads every assertion is false. Private non-party names redacted.
Exhibits not reproduced. Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 7 and 10 are withheld. They turn on a private non-party's personal photograph (1 and 7) or on personal, medical, or sexual allegations about individuals who are not part of this case (2, 3 and 10). The accusations those posts level at Mace herself are already represented in the exhibits shown above. The five reproduced exhibits are also hosted together as a PDF.
Docket
| Date | Filing | Filed by |
|---|---|---|
| 2025-05-12 | Complaint (Defamation Per Se) + Summons, dispatch | Plaintiff Mace |
| 2025-07-01 | Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Sullivan; Anderson) | Plaintiff Mace |
| 2025-07-09 | Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6)) | Defendant Bowman (pro se) |
| 2025-07-09 | Order Granting In Forma Pauperis | Court |
| 2025-09-02 | Order of the Supreme Court of S.C. assigning this and five related cases to Judge Hocker (signed Aug. 27, 2025) | Court (Chief Justice Kittredge) |
| 2025-09-03 | Affidavit of Service on Eric B. Bowman | Plaintiff Mace |
| 2025-10-06 | Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss | Plaintiff Mace |
| 2025-10-10 | Motion for Continuance; Notice of Appearance (Robert Merting for Bowman) | Defendant |
| 2026-06-02 | Consent Order for Stay of Proceedings (120-day stay; the order notes the parties are "adverse to each other in a pending case in federal court in the District of South Carolina"), signed for Mace by Moorman and Sullivan | Court (on parties' joint motion) |
| 2026-06-30 | Notice that Mace is proceeding pro se (as referenced in the July 6 motion) | Plaintiff Mace, pro se |
| 2026-07-06 | Notice removing counsel of record, naming Alex Anderson, William Sullivan, and Andrew Moorman as no longer representing Mace; Mace consents to proceed pro se | Plaintiff Mace, pro se |
| 2026-07-06 | Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings, dispatch | Plaintiff Mace, pro se |
Status: Stayed by consent June 2, 2026. On July 6, 2026 Mace, now pro se, moved to lift the stay so that Bowman's motion to dismiss, fully briefed since October 2025, can be decided. The motion to lift and the motion to dismiss both remain outstanding.
The stay, and the pro se turn
On June 2, 2026, at the parties' joint request, Judge Hocker entered a Consent Order staying the case for 120 days, finding a stay would "best serve the interests of all parties involved" because the parties were "adverse to each other in multiple forums on different facts," a reference to a pending federal case between them in the District of South Carolina that the order expressly notes. That consent order was signed for Mace by her counsel, Andrew B. Moorman, Sr. and William M. Sullivan, Jr. A month later, Mace changed course. Per a Notice she filed June 30, 2026, she is now proceeding pro se, and on July 6, 2026 she filed, in her own hand and over her own signature, a Motion to Lift Stay so the case can move to a decision on Bowman's motion to dismiss. A separate one-page notice in the court file, stamped FILED July 6, 2026, names all three attorneys, Moorman and the Pillsbury pro hac vice team of Sullivan and Alex G. Anderson, states they "are no longer representing" Mace, and asks the Clerk to remove them as counsel of record; Mace signs a "CONSENT" to proceed pro se. The full eight-page motion and the counsel-withdrawal notice are reproduced and explained in the dispatch.
Sources & Related Coverage
The filing itself: Complaint (Defamation Per Se) (PDF, 18 pages, complaint body, private non-party names redacted), Nancy R. Mace v. Eric Bernard Bowman, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-02733, electronically filed May 12, 2025. The posts attached as exhibits are hosted separately (PDF, five exhibits, private non-party names and material redacted).
The assignment order: Order of the Supreme Court of South Carolina assigning the case to Judge Hocker (PDF, 3 pages), signed by Chief Justice John W. Kittredge August 27, 2025, e-filed September 2, 2025.
The pro se motion: Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings (PDF, 8 pages), filed July 6, 2026, signed by Rep. Nancy R. Mace, pro se; reproduced page by page in the dispatch.
The counsel-withdrawal notice: Notice removing counsel of record (PDF, 1 page), naming Alex Anderson, William Sullivan, and Andrew Moorman as no longer representing Rep. Mace, stamped FILED July 6, 2026.
Case No. 2025-CP-10-02733 is searchable on the South Carolina Judicial Branch Public Index at publicindex.sccourts.org by case number. All filings listed above are public records available through that index.
Related Dispatches
Pro Se: Nancy Mace has lost her lawyers again, this time in her own defamation suit against Eric Bowman
On July 6, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace filed a Motion to Lift Stay in her own defamation case against Eric Bowman, and she filed it pro se, representing herself. On the coversheet she crossed out the entire 'Plaintiff's Attorney' block by hand, wrote 'N/A,' and wrote 'Pro Se.' The motion states she 'is now proceeding pro se in this matter, as reflected in the Notice filed June 30, 2026.' It is the second time in this cluster of cases she has gone without counsel. The three attorneys who filed and briefed the Bowman case for her, local counsel Andrew B. Moorman, Sr. and the two Washington lawyers she brought in pro hac vice, William M. Sullivan, Jr. and Alex G. Anderson, are no longer her counsel of record. A separate notice filed the same day names all three and asks the Clerk of Court to remove them. The complete eight-page motion, and the counsel-withdrawal notice, are reproduced below. Allegations on every side are contested and unproven; Bowman denies Mace's claims and has moved to dismiss, and Mace denies Bowman's.
A federal magistrate recommends sending the case Mace removed to federal court back to state court, finding her pro se removal 'untimely': 'it is RECOMMENDED that Bryant's Motion to Remand be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to state court.'
On June 17, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and Recommendation in the case Rep. Nancy Mace removed to federal court (Berg v. Bryant, docketed federally as No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC), recommending that the case be remanded to state court. The recommendation is procedural, not a ruling on the truth of anyone's allegations: the magistrate found that Mace, who removed the case and briefed the remand motion pro se, was on notice the case was removable by December 12, 2025, so her January 29, 2026 removal of the entire case was untimely. A Report and Recommendation is not a final order; the parties have 14 days to object, and U.S. District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks will make the final decision. The underlying allegations are disputed and contested; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.