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
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.
On January 21, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace, appearing pro se, without counsel, wrote a letter directly to Judge Donald B. Hocker of the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, the judge presiding over Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, in which Mace is a third-party defendant and subject to a gag order. She filed the letter on that docket under a pro se notice, and the Clerk of Court stamped it FILED on January 22, 2026. Copies were later attached as exhibits to her Notice of Removal filings in federal court. In the letter she announced she had moved the contempt proceeding against her to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and would seek to remove the entire action.
The complete five-page filing, the notice cover page bearing the Clerk's stamp, followed by Mace's four-page signed letter, is reproduced below, and the original PDF is available here.
The letter, as filed
Page 1, the pro se notice of filing, case caption 2025-CP-10-03124, stamped FILED Jan. 22, 2026, signed by Mace.
Page 2, the letter opens on "THE HONORABLE NANCY R. MACE / MEMBER OF CONGRESS" letterhead: notice of removal, discharge of her counsel, and the argument that the gag order is "overly broad, unconstitutional, and unenforceable."
Page 3, the strict-scrutiny argument; "Mr. Bowman and Mr. Bryant have sought to use this Court to accomplish what they could not accomplish through intimidation and harassment: my silence."
Page 4, the "Kangaroo Court" accusation, "I will not be SILENCED," and the "cold dark cell" passage.
Page 5, the closing line, "I yield to no man who seeks to silence the truth," over Mace's signature.
What the letter says
Her opening move was to attack the gag order as unconstitutional:
"the Gag 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."
Mace then catalogued what she characterized as contradictory statements by Bryant's attorneys about possession of a phone, statements she described as "fictitious and false … stated under oath … to manipulate this Court and the press." She argued that, because of the gag order, she had no recourse when those alleged falsehoods produced what she called defamatory headlines about her. She closed that section of the letter with a direct accusation at opposing counsel and a declaration to the judge:
"Furthermore, opposing counsel has turned your Honorable Court into a Kangaroo Court, which does an enormous disservice to the great state of South Carolina."
"I respectfully inform this Honorable Court: I will not be SILENCED."
The letter's final paragraphs escalated further. Invoking her floor speech "almost one year ago", during which she says she held up handcuffs and said, "If anyone would like to arrest me for standing up for women, here are my wrists", Mace made clear she was prepared to go to jail rather than comply with an order she considered unlawful:
"That offer stands today. I would rather sit in a cold dark cell than abandon South Carolina's daughters who are counting on me to fight for them."
And her sign-off, bolded in the original:
"The gag order as it stands is unconstitutional and unenforceable and therefore, Your Honor, I yield to no man who seeks to silence the truth."
What makes this document unusual, and significant as a matter of public record, is not merely its tone. A sitting member of Congress, writing without an attorney, accused a state court judge's courtroom of being a "Kangaroo Court," declared the judge's own gag order unconstitutional, and simultaneously yanked the contempt proceeding out of his jurisdiction and into federal court, all in a single letter addressed to that judge personally. The letter is a public court filing and is part of the official case record, reproduced above in full.
The underlying dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation in Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related actions, the federal removal proceedings (D.S.C. Nos. 2:26-cv-00305, 2:26-cv-00306), and a separate South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation; all allegations remain unproven and contested. Mace denies Bryant's claims; Bryant and the other named parties deny Mace's allegations; no underlying matter has been adjudicated. Nothing here is a finding of fact. For background on the parties see People in the Public Record.
Sources & related coverage:
- The filing itself: Letter to Judge Hocker re Gag Order and Notice of Removal (PDF, 5 pages), Mace's pro se notice + letter, Berg v. Bryant, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas No. 2025-CP-10-03124, letter dated January 21, 2026, stamped FILED January 22, 2026.
- Copies of the letter were attached as exhibits to Mace's federal removal filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, see No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC (Entry 3-12, filed Feb. 3, 2026) and No. 2:26-cv-00306-BHH-MHC (Entry 1-6, filed Jan. 29, 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
