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) · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
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.
On December 19, 2025, Rep. Nancy Mace's attorney filed her formal Answer to Patrick Bryant's Third-Party Complaint in Berg v. Bryant, the civil case pending in Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124. The document is a court filing, sworn responses, paragraph by paragraph, to Bryant's allegations. In it, Mace concedes certain facts and contests others. Both sets of statements are in her own words, on the public record. The filed Answer is reproduced below in key pages; the full 27-page original PDF is available here.
The Answer, as filed
Page 1 of 27, case caption: Alexis Berg v. Patrick Bryant et al., Charleston County Court of Common Pleas No. 2025-CP-10-03124; Third-Party Defendant Nancy Mace's Answer, electronically filed December 19, 2025 at 4:43 PM.
Page 5 of 27, Paragraphs 21-22: the air-tag admission and laptop admission, in Mace's own filed words.
Page 7 of 27, Paragraph 33: Mace's response to the Donehue allegation, admitting she told him Bryant filmed women without consent and denying the "get her houses" characterization.
Page 27 of 27, the closing attorney block, dated December 19, 2025, Florence, SC, with the electronic-filing stamp.
What the filing says
The single most concrete admission concerns a tracking device:
"Mace admits that she placed an air tag on Bryant's car for one day in August 2023."
The Answer goes on to address a second allegation, that Mace attempted to access Bryant's laptop, and admits it, but with an explicit reason attached:
"Mace admits that she attempted to access Bryant's laptop, but this occurred after she discovered videos and photographs on Bryant's phone depicting what appeared to be an unconscious woman being sexually assaulted after she discovered she and other women, including some of his female employees and wives of some of his male employees, and other women were filmed on a hidden camera without their knowledge, permission or consent."
That passage is Mace's own assertion about what she says she discovered, it is her stated justification, contained in her Answer, not a finding of any court.
Bryant's Third-Party Complaint further alleged that Mace told political consultant Wesley Donehue she planned to use information from Bryant's phone to obtain property. Mace's Answer responds directly to that:
"Mace admits that she told Donehue that Bryant had filmed women without their consent. Mace denies stating that she would use the information to 'get her houses.'"
The significance of the filing is structural: what Mace concedes (placing a tracking device on Bryant's vehicle; attempting to access his laptop) is her own sworn statement, not an allegation by an opposing party. What she denies, including the "get her houses" framing Bryant attributes to her, she contests in equal measure and under the same rules of court.
The Answer also asserts affirmative defenses, including that Bryant gave Mace permission to access his phone, that her statements about Bryant were true, and that certain of her alleged actions were within the scope of her duties as a Member of Congress under the Westfall Act.
The allegations in this litigation are unproven and contested. Bryant categorically denies Mace's claims and disputes her account of events. A SLED investigation remains open. No court has adjudicated the underlying merits. Mace's statements in her Answer are her own attributed assertions, not findings of fact. See People in the Public Record for background on the parties. For related actions see Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related proceedings.
Sources & related coverage:
- The filing itself: Third-Party Defendant Nancy Mace's Answer to Third-Party Complaint (PDF, 27 pages), Alexis Berg v. Patrick Bryant et al., Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, electronically filed December 19, 2025 (amended January 15, 2026).
- The state docket is verifiable on the SC Judicial Branch Public Index (Charleston County) under Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124.
- Case background: The Litigation
