Musgrave v. Mace (2:25-cv-01823-RMG)
Brian Musgrave, one of four men Rep. Nancy Mace named in her February 2025 House floor speech, filed a federal defamation and libel suit against her. The case turned on whether the Speech or Debate Clause and the Westfall Act shielded Mace from liability for statements made both inside and outside Congress. Senior District Judge Richard Gergel heard oral argument on August 20, 2025 and that same day entered an order that led Mace to characterize the case as resolved in her favor; the full scope of the ruling, and whether any claims survive, is addressed below.
All characterizations of legal arguments below reflect the positions taken by the respective parties in their filed motions and the court's publicly issued order. They are not findings by this wiki or assessments of the merits. All allegations made by either side are contested and unproven. Rep. Mace denies wrongdoing and has maintained that her conduct was undertaken in her official capacity as a Member of Congress. The litigation produced findings of law, not findings of fact, on the underlying accusations.
What the case is about
On the evening of February 10, 2025, Rep. Nancy Mace delivered a speech on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in which she named four private citizens by name, including Brian Musgrave, and described them as sexual predators who had "incapacitated women" and secretly filmed them. She displayed a poster board during the speech labeled "PREDATORS" bearing photos and names of the four men.
After the speech, Mace rebroadcast it on her official congressional X account (the post reached more than 2.8 million views by the time the amended complaint was filed), posted additional X messages referencing Musgrave by name, and displayed the same "PREDATORS" poster outside her congressional office in the Longworth House Office Building.
Musgrave, a Fort Mill, South Carolina businessman who co-owns real estate with Patrick Bryant but who, his attorneys say, had no involvement in any of the incidents Mace described, denied the accusations. His attorneys sent a pre-suit demand letter asking Mace to produce evidence linking Musgrave to any alleged conduct or to retract and apologize. A representative for the House General Counsel responded that "SLED is investigating the matter" and directed Musgrave's counsel to contact SLED. Musgrave's lead attorney Eric Bland called it "a typical government response, a non-answer."
"I am not a rapist. I am not a predator. I am not a sex trafficker," Musgrave told CNN.
Musgrave filed suit in federal court on approximately March 14, 2025, as reported by the Post and Courier's Caitlin Byrd. A First Amended Complaint was filed June 9, 2025 (Dkt. No. 16/16-1). The amended complaint asserted causes of action for libel per se (Counts 1-11), a Bivens constitutional claim, defamation per se, civil conspiracy, and a request for permanent injunctive relief.
Who Brian Musgrave is
Brian Musgrave is a Charleston-area businessman and co-investor with Patrick Bryant in at least one Isle of Palms property that the two have operated as a short-term rental. Musgrave lives in a different part of South Carolina than Mace's First Congressional District. He is not her constituent. He told CNN that the impact of Mace's speech had been "catastrophic," that he was "completely uncertain what tomorrow is going to be business-wise," and that his family, including children in high school and college, had been required to answer for their father being publicly branded an "alleged rapist" and "alleged predator."
Musgrave was represented by the firm Bland Richter, LLP, attorneys Eric S. Bland, Ronald L. Richter, Jr., and Scott M. Mongillo, throughout the litigation.
The Westfall Act question
The Westfall Act (28 U.S.C. § 2679) provides that when a federal employee is sued, the Attorney General may certify that the employee was acting within the scope of their federal employment at the time of the challenged conduct. If that certification is accepted, the United States is substituted as the sole defendant, and the case is then governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The FTCA explicitly bars suits against the United States for libel and slander (28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)), which would result in dismissal.
On July 16, 2025, U.S. Attorney for South Carolina Bryan Stirling filed a scope-of-employment certification pursuant to the Westfall Act, asserting that Mace and the Jane/John Doe defendants were acting within the scope of their federal duties when making the statements at issue, including Mace's social-media posts viewed by millions. The United States simultaneously moved to be substituted as the party defendant (Dkt. No. 21) and to dismiss the action on the grounds that defamation claims against the United States are barred by the FTCA (Dkt. No. 22).
On July 19, 2025, Musgrave's counsel filed an Opposition to the Westfall Act Certification and Speech-or-Debate Clause Protection (the document is in the public record). The opposition argued, among other things, that Mace's conduct was a personal post-breakup vendetta against Patrick Bryant rather than an exercise of congressional duties; that accusing private citizens by name of rape, voyeurism, and sex trafficking does not constitute a legislative act within the scope of congressional employment; and that Mace's extensive republication of her accusations on social media and via her congressional newsletter after the floor speech extended the harm well outside the legislative chamber and beyond any protected sphere.
The opposition cited a broader pattern of conduct, including Mace's alleged solicitation of witnesses to corroborate her accusations, an airport encounter described in the Vicki Pittman affidavit, the May 20, 2025 subcommittee hearing, podcast appearances, and press statements, as evidence that Mace's campaign against Bryant and those around him was personal, not official.
In plain English, the Westfall/scope-of-employment question asked: Was Mace doing her job as a congresswoman, or pursuing a personal grievance? The plaintiff said personal grievance; the government said job duties.
The Speech or Debate Clause question
The Speech or Debate Clause (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 6) provides that members of Congress "shall not be questioned in any other Place" for "any Speech or Debate in either House." It is a near-absolute immunity for votes, speeches, and actions within the "legitimate legislative sphere." Courts have long held, however, that the Clause does not extend to statements republished outside the chamber, including newsletters, social media, and press appearances. (Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972).)
Mace separately moved to dismiss Musgrave's Bivens claim under the Speech or Debate Clause (Dkt. No. 24), arguing absolute congressional immunity for her floor speech.
The August 20, 2025 ruling (Dkt. No. 43)
Senior District Judge Richard M. Gergel conducted oral argument on August 20, 2025 on all pending motions, the United States' motion to substitute (Dkt. No. 21), the United States' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 22), Mace's motion to dismiss the Bivens claim (Dkt. No. 24), and Musgrave's motion for limited discovery (Dkt. No. 31). Judge Gergel issued his 15-page order (Entry Number 43) the same day. It is reproduced below, and the original PDF is available here.
Page 1, the order takes up the motion to substitute (Dkt. 21), the two motions to dismiss (Dkt. 22, 24), and the discovery motion (Dkt. 31). It recounts that on February 10, 2025, Mace "publicly denounced Plaintiff and three other men by name as alleged sexual predators."
Page 15, the conclusion: substitution granted, both motions to dismiss granted, the discovery motion denied, and "this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE," signed by Judge Gergel.
The order resolved every pending motion. The court granted the United States' motion to substitute itself as the defendant in place of Mace and the Doe defendants (Counts 1-11, 13, 14, 15), finding that Mace's floor speech and its republication fell within the scope of her congressional employment; granted the United States' motion to dismiss those counts under the Federal Tort Claims Act, "which includes actions for libel and slander" against the United States (28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)); granted Mace's separate motion to dismiss the Bivens claim (Count 12); and denied Musgrave's motion for limited discovery. "Based on the foregoing," the order concludes, "this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE."
The dismissal rested on sovereign immunity and the scope-of-employment certification, not on any finding about the truth of the accusations Mace made or Musgrave denied. As the court put it: "Under the operation of the FTCA, Plaintiff has no civil remedy to hold accountable persons he believes have defamed him." Musgrave's attorneys had argued throughout that the Speech or Debate Clause cannot transform "the floor of Congress into a sanctuary for defamation," and that Mace's social-media republication, reaching millions of views, extended the harm beyond any protected legislative act.
On August 20, 2025, Mace texted Alexis Berg: "And my defamation case was thrown out this morning w Musgrave!", a characterization consistent with the order.
Evidence the plaintiff's filing organizes
The First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 20-1, filed June 9, 2025) organizes the following categories of alleged conduct:
The floor speech itself (February 10, 2025). Mace's 53-minute address, during which she displayed the "PREDATORS" poster with Musgrave's photo, named him alongside Patrick Bryant, Eric Bowman, and John Osborne, and accused the group of incapacitating and filming women at an Isle of Palms property.
The "PREDATORS" poster outside her office. Mace displayed the same poster in a public hallway near her congressional office in the Longworth building, re-publishing the accusation to everyone who passed. See The "PREDATORS" poster outside her office for the full record of the poster, its late-March 2025 removal, and its November 2025 revival.
Social media republication. Mace posted the speech on X at 7:25 PM on February 10, where it reached 2.8 million views; reposted related content at 7:34 PM (1.8 million views); followed up on February 11, February 14, and subsequent dates with additional posts referencing Musgrave. Each post is identified as a separate alleged publication in the complaint.
The April 11, 2025 broadcast interview. Mace made statements on a broadcast interview that the complaint alleges falsely implied she had evidence that Musgrave had committed crimes.
The May 20, 2025 House Oversight Subcommittee hearing. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation, Mace delivered an 18-minute opening statement that, according to the public hearing record, made additional criminal accusations against Bryant and displayed a photograph from a civil lawsuit, conduct the complaint characterizes as amplifying the defamatory campaign outside any protected legislative act. The full hearing is publicly available on YouTube (youtube.com/watch?v=Y7M8foIxyRI).
Witness recruitment. The complaint describes Mace's alleged attempts to recruit witnesses to corroborate her accusations. Among those she allegedly approached was Vicki Pittman, Bryant's former housekeeper, who gave a sworn affidavit describing an airport encounter in the first week of May 2025 in which she says Mace pressed her about Bryant's conduct, an encounter Pittman swore was "strictly personal" and had "no connection to [Mace's] official duties." See Vicki Pittman.
Other affiants cited in the briefing. The opposition to the Westfall certification referenced affidavits and declarations from witnesses including Neely Kelleher, Ashleigh Messervy, and Eric Bowman in support of the argument that Mace's accusations lacked evidentiary basis. See Neely Kelleher, Ashleigh Messervy, and Eric Bowman.
The Kris Furniss text. The briefing references a communication from Kris Furniss in the evidential record. See Kris Furniss.
Connection to other litigation
This case is closely linked to the other matters in the Maceopedia public record:
- The Westfall Act certification by U.S. Attorney Stirling also arose in the related federal proceeding, and Stirling's certification was cited by plaintiff in opposing dismissal. The question of whether Mace's conduct was personal or official is the same question litigated in the Pittman affidavit's use in Berg v. Bryant federal removal proceedings. See Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant).
- Patrick Bryant's publicly filed Motion to Remand briefing in the federal removal (No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC) cites the Pittman affidavit in arguing that Mace's conduct was personal rather than official, the same argument Musgrave's counsel made to Judge Gergel.
- The underlying allegations Mace made against Musgrave trace to her breakup with Bryant. For background on Bryant's role in the record, see Patrick Bryant.
- The Timeline maps the key dates: the February 10, 2025 floor speech, the filing of the suit (approximately March 14, 2025), the July 16, 2025 Westfall certification, the July 19, 2025 opposition, and the August 20, 2025 hearing and ruling.
- For Musgrave's own wiki entry, see Brian Musgrave.
Sources & related coverage
Primary documents (free public copies):
- The order itself: Order on the Westfall Act certification and motions to dismiss (PDF, 15 pages), Senior District Judge Richard M. Gergel, August 20, 2025 (Dkt. No. 43); also available directly from the federal court record on CourtListener / RECAP.
- Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to the Scope-of-Employment Certification and Motion to Substitute the United States (PDF, with exhibits), filed July 25, 2025 (Dkt. No. 28), hosted by plaintiff's counsel Bland Richter, LLP. (Its exhibits include the witness affidavits referenced above.)
- Public docket overview: Justia Dockets.
Public docket (PACER): Case No. 2:25-cv-01823-RMG, U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina (Charleston Division). Key entries: Dkt. No. 1 (original complaint); Dkt. No. 16/16-1 (First Amended Complaint, June 9, 2025); Dkt. No. 21 (United States' Motion to Substitute); Dkt. No. 22 (United States' Motion to Dismiss); Dkt. No. 24 (Mace's Motion to Dismiss Bivens claim); Dkt. No. 31 (Musgrave's Motion for Limited Discovery); Dkt. No. 43 (Order, August 20, 2025, Judge Gergel).
News coverage:
- U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace sued for libel and defamation after making public accusations of abuse, The Post and Courier (Caitlin Byrd, March 14, 2025)
- Can US Rep. Nancy Mace be shielded from a defamation suit? A judge will have to decide. The Post and Courier (July 2025)
- Rep. Mace sued by one of the men she accused of being a sexual predator, SC Daily Gazette (March 14, 2025)
- Rep. Nancy Mace details accusations of rape and sexual abuse in a speech from the House floor, NBC News
- Brian Musgrave speaks to CNN after Mace's floor speech, CNN (March 10, 2025)
Related case hubs on this site:
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.
'To Simply Make Up a Legal Standard Is Inexcusable': Opposing Counsel Asks Court to Sanction Mace's Pro Se TRO Filing
In a March 5, 2026 response filed in ADW v. Berg, Assignment Desk Works' counsel Rene Dukes told a Charleston court that Rep. Nancy Mace's pro se emergency TRO motion cited a four-part legal standard that does not exist under South Carolina law, misrepresented a second case as supporting a doctrine it does not mention, and contradicted itself on whether an attorney-client relationship ever existed. Dukes asked the court to deny the motion and sanction Mace under Rule 11, the rule that requires any litigant, represented or not, to certify that a filing has good-faith legal and factual support.
For All the Accusations, 'Not One Woman Other Than Defendant Has Brought an Action Against Bryant, Including Mace'
In a two-page response filed March 4, 2026, ADW's counsel Rene Stuhr Dukes told a Charleston court that despite a coordinated effort by Ali Berg and Nancy Mace to level sexual-crime accusations against Patrick Bryant, no woman — including Mace herself — has filed a legal action against him. The filing is opposing counsel's argument, not a judicial finding; Bryant's denials and an open SLED investigation remain part of the record.
Bryant's Own Lawyer Alleges Mace 'Stole' His Phone and Hired a PI to Extract Its Data
In a public court filing, Patrick Bryant's attorney asserted in an email exhibit that Nancy Mace took Bryant's Samsung Galaxy S22 from his home and hired a private investigator to copy files off it. The allegations are unproven and contested; Berg's motion argues that Bryant's own pleadings directly contradict the account.
Opposing Counsel Tells Court Mace's Motion Is 'Intended to Delay This Litigation, Harass Plaintiff, Its Members, and Agents'
In a February 2026 court filing, ADW's counsel Rene Dukes argued that Rep. Nancy Mace had no legal standing to intervene in the ADW v. Berg breach-of-contract case and that her motion was frivolous, filed solely to harass and delay. Dukes also noted that Mace's filing invoked her own congressional floor speech, in which she had named private citizens who are members of the plaintiff.
Mace Calls ADW's Breach-of-Contract Suit a 'Fishing Expedition,' Moves to Dismiss It, Despite Not Being a Party
On January 27, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace, not a party to ADW v. Berg, a breach-of-contract case between her company and a former employee, filed an Emergency Motion to Intervene, seeking to dismiss the suit, impose sanctions on both sides' attorneys, and block all discovery. Mace signed the motion herself, as a pro se litigant, and certified that she had skipped the required meet-and-confer with opposing counsel because, in her judgment, it 'would not be productive.' ADW v. Berg is a civil case in Charleston County; no findings of fact have been made.
'This Court Now Stands as the Only Barrier': Mace Files Sworn Emergency Motion to Gag Opposing Lawyers
On January 27, 2026, Nancy Mace filed a sworn, verified Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in the ADW v. Berg civil case, asking a Charleston County judge to bar opposing counsel, Patrick Bryant, and Berg's attorneys from accessing or using materials she called privileged. The motion — signed under oath by Mace personally — also places her gubernatorial candidacy on the official court record.
Mace voluntarily shared her Google Drive as 'helpful' evidence, then sent 'threatening' letters demanding it back
In a January 2026 emergency motion, Ali Berg's attorney Marybeth Mullaney told a Charleston court that Congresswoman Nancy Mace had voluntarily handed over her Google Drive in June 2025, saying she believed it would be 'helpful' to Berg's defense, and then reversed course, sending what the motion calls 'threatening emails and letters' demanding Berg's counsel stop using the materials, return or destroy them, and 'claw back' items already produced in discovery. The motion asks the court to step in and decide whether Berg may keep using what Mace herself provided.
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.'
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.
'There are at least two people in Mace's car': Bryant's counsel refuses to delete the recording, and announces an amended complaint
The recording of Nancy Mace's first phone call with Ali Berg, produced by Berg's counsel in the ADW v. Berg civil case, quickly became a courtroom fight. When Berg's counsel designated it confidential, Bryant's counsel refused to delete it, argued witnesses in the car undermined any privacy claim, and announced he would amend the complaint against Mace based on its contents.
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.
Patrick Bryant publishes Mace's emails to his lawyers: 'You poked the wrong bear. And you will pay dearly.'
On November 14, 2025, Patrick Bryant published screenshots of emails he said a sitting Member of Congress sent to his attorneys and process server, including a profanity-laced reply to a cease-and-desist letter, an email authorizing service on two attorneys, and a reply from one of those attorneys stating she does not represent Mace. The screenshots are reproduced below; the allegations on every side are disputed and unproven.
Patrick Bryant: 'Today I filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint… Where is the evidence?'
On November 6, 2025, Patrick Bryant announced he had filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint in Charleston County Court against Nancy Mace and alleged co-conspirators, denying he had ever assaulted anyone and demanding evidence.
Mace announces intent to sue: 'SUING FOR DEFAMATION!!'
On Nov. 5, 2025, Rep. Nancy Mace announced she had retained attorney Larry Klayman and intended to sue the Charleston Airport, American Airlines, and others for allegedly falsifying incident reports after her Oct. 30 confrontation. As of June 2026, no complaint had been filed in any court.
'Recuse themselves': Mace's official press release demands the prosecutor's removal and a state investigation into her
On August 18, 2025, Rep. Nancy Mace issued an official congressional press release headlined 'Solicitor Scarlett Wilson Tipped Off Abuser and Leaked Evidence to Harm Victim,' demanding that the elected Ninth Circuit Solicitor recuse from 'any and all cases related to this victim,' be removed from all domestic-violence prosecutions, and face 'a full and immediate state investigation into Wilson's misconduct.' Wilson responded that prosecutors are 'required by law and ethical rules to provide all relevant information to the defense' and that she would not 'play a part in the circus sideshow.' The allegations on all sides are unproven and contested.
Mace enters SC governor's race: 'South Carolina doesn't need another empty suit'
On August 4, 2025, Mace officially announced her campaign for South Carolina governor, framing her candidacy as a contrast to what she called 'empty suits.'
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.
'The solicitor leaked evidence': Mace accuses the prosecutor in her own cases on a national podcast
On June 19, 2025, on the PBD Podcast, Rep. Nancy Mace named Ninth Judicial Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, the elected chief prosecutor whose circuit would handle the cases arising from Mace's own allegations, and accused her of leaking evidence, refusing to prosecute rape, and having 'inserted yourself into this investigation and … obstructed the investigation.' Wilson answered that her office was not running the investigation, SLED was, and said 'I have no idea what the Congresswoman is referring to.' The Post and Courier reported that when it asked Mace's office, repeatedly, for evidence of the obstruction claim, none was provided. The underlying allegations are unproven and contested.
At her own surveillance hearing, Mace displays a 'naked silhouette' of herself: 'That's my body. You can see the silhouette.'
Chairing a House Oversight subcommittee hearing she titled 'Breach of Trust: Surveillance in Private Spaces,' Rep. Nancy Mace held up a poster-sized image she said depicted her own body, told the room it had been captured by hidden surveillance without her consent, and said no one had been arrested. She tied the image to her ex-fiancé, Patrick Bryant, who categorically denies her allegations; the matter is contested and in ongoing litigation.
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.'
Patrick Bryant shares P&C report: Mace 'declined to answer' on private vs. taxpayer-funded defense
On March 9, 2025, Patrick Bryant shared a Post & Courier report on the legal exposure facing Rep. Nancy Mace after her House floor speech, spotlighting that her office declined to say whether she would use a private or taxpayer-funded attorney.
Mace's floor speech: 'I'm going scorched earth' on predators
In a roughly 53-minute House floor speech on February 10, 2025, Mace named multiple men she alleged had assaulted or exploited her and other women, vowing to 'burn this system to the ground' if necessary.
"Arrest me. Take me to jail." Mace brings handcuffs to the House floor
During her February 10, 2025 House floor speech, Rep. Nancy Mace said she had been told she would be investigated and could be arrested for coming forward, then held up a pair of handcuffs and told the chamber: 'If anyone would like to arrest me for standing up for women, here are my wrists. Arrest me. Take me to jail.' Nearly a year later she repeated the offer in a written statement to the court in Berg v. Bryant. The men she has accused deny the allegations and the civil litigation is ongoing.
Mace on potential governor rival: 'I will take him out'
On January 28, 2025, before formally announcing her own gubernatorial run, Mace vowed to personally ensure an unspecified potential opponent never became South Carolina's governor.
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.