Part of: Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.) · Berg v. Bryant (and Bryant's Third-Party Complaint against Mace) · Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Musgrave v. Mace (2:25-cv-01823-RMG) · Nancy Mace's Gag Order Violations · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
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.
On November 26, 2025, Judge Donald B. Hocker of the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, entered a sua sponte gag order in Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124. According to the subsequent contempt motion, the order was "circulated by Judge Hocker, via e-mail, to all counsel of record on November 26, 2025 at 2:23 p.m.", including Mace's counsel, D. Craig Brown.
The order barred all parties and their agents and attorneys from "Making or publishing any comment about any aspect of this case … via oral, written, social media, text or any other forms of communication" and from commenting about "any party or attorney to this case or anyone connected to this case."
At 6:43 p.m. that same day, from her verified X account @RepNancyMace, Mace replied to a post reporting that co-defendant Eric Bowman had reportedly been granted bond on alleged domestic-violence and harassment charges. Her reply, in full:
"Not nearly enough. Very concerned for the safety of his victims. Keeping them in my prayers tonight."
The contempt motion's account
On January 12, 2026, plaintiffs Patrick Bryant and Eric Bowman filed an "Order to Show Cause and Motion for Civil Contempt Against Nancy Mace" in Berg v. Bryant. The motion attaches Mace's November 26 post as Exhibit 3 and contends that it "names Eric Bowman, labels unnamed persons 'his victims,' and comments on alleged criminal conduct that is the subject of this matter." The motion's footnote states: "it only took Mace less than 4-hours to violate the Court's Gag Order."
Page 5 of that filing, reproduced below, describes the post and its timing:
Page 5 of the January 12, 2026 contempt motion in Berg v. Bryant (No. 2025-CP-10-03124), identifying the November 26, 2025 @RepNancyMace post as Exhibit 3 and contending it constituted a violation of the gag order entered hours earlier that day.
The full contempt motion, including all exhibits, is available here.
Mace's position
Mace has disputed both the contempt motion and the validity of the gag order itself. In a January 21, 2026 letter to Judge Hocker, filed on the state docket and attached as an exhibit to her federal removal filings, she wrote that the order is "overly broad, unconstitutional, and unenforceable, particularly as applied to a sitting member of the U.S. Congress and leading candidate for Governor of South Carolina." She simultaneously moved the contempt proceeding to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and declared: "I will not be SILENCED." The full letter is reproduced in the dispatch "Kangaroo Court … I will not be SILENCED".
The underlying dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation in Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related actions, and a separate South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation. All allegations in the contempt motion remain unproven and contested. Mace denies Bryant's claims and contests the validity of the gag order; Bryant and Bowman deny Mace's allegations; no underlying matter has been adjudicated. The gag order's constitutionality is itself disputed and has not been ruled upon. Nothing here is a finding of fact. For background on the parties see People in the Public Record.
Sources & related coverage:
- The contempt motion: Order to Show Cause and Motion for Civil Contempt Against Nancy Mace (PDF), filed January 12, 2026, Berg v. Bryant, No. 2025-CP-10-03124 (Charleston County Court of Common Pleas); the November 26, 2025 @RepNancyMace post appears as Exhibit 3.
- The gag order: Gag Order, Nov. 26, 2025 (PDF), Judge Donald B. Hocker, Berg v. Bryant, No. 2025-CP-10-03124.
- Case hub: Berg v. Bryant, court filings
- Topic overview: The Gag Order · The Litigation
- Mace's response: "Kangaroo Court … I will not be SILENCED" (Jan. 21, 2026)
- SC Judicial Branch Public Index, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124 (Charleston County).