An Independent Public Record

MACEOPEDIA

The Public Record

← Back to Dispatches

Part of: Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Musgrave v. Mace (2:25-cv-01823-RMG) · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index

U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina

Brian Musgrave Sued Nancy Mace. The Court Threw It Out.

Brian Musgrave, one of the four men Nancy Mace named in her February 10, 2025 House floor speech, filed two defamation suits. The first, against Mace, was dismissed with prejudice on August 20, 2025 after the United States was substituted for her under the Westfall Act; the judge wrote that 'Plaintiff has no civil remedy to hold accountable persons he believes have defamed him' and that the court 'offers no opinion concerning the truthfulness or the lack of truthfulness' of her allegations. The second, against OAN's parent company and the Louder with Crowder podcast, produced a September 30, 2026 order: the parent company was dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the podcast defendants won summary judgment because their statements were not susceptible to a defamatory meaning as to Musgrave. Neither court decided whether Mace's accusations are true. Musgrave denies them. Mace denies wrongdoing.

Source note: this dispatch is built on two federal court orders, both reproduced below, on the public docket of each case, and on the reporting of the outlets credited here. Court quotes are verbatim from the orders. Press and social-media quotes are verbatim from the outlet or post named. Everything said about what Mace said, or about what Musgrave says, is attributed to the person who said it. Each ruling is a ruling on law (immunity in the first case, jurisdiction and meaning in the second). Neither court ruled on whether Mace's accusations are true, and Maceopedia takes no position on that.

"Under the operation of the FTCA, Plaintiff has no civil remedy to hold accountable persons he believes have defamed him."

That is U.S. District Judge Richard Mark Gergel, on page 9 of his order of August 20, 2025 in Musgrave v. Mace, the federal defamation suit Brian Musgrave filed against Rep. Nancy Mace. The very next sentence is a duty statement: "It is this Court's duty to uphold the rule of law." And a footnote on page 8 says what the order is not:

"The Court offers no opinion concerning the truthfulness or the lack of truthfulness of allegations made by Defendant Mace in her House speech. The issue before the Court is limited to the question of whether Defendant Mace was acting within the scope of her employment when she delivered her House speech and had related communications with the press and on social media."

Fourteen months later, a second federal judge ruled against a second Musgrave suit. This page puts both orders on the record and tells the story in order.

Reporting credited here: CNN's Randi Kaye (the March 2025 Musgrave interview); Live 5 News (WCSC), Caroline Spikes and Emily Johnson; ABC News 4 (WCIV), Perrin Moore and the station's newsroom; Queen City News, Khalif Rhodes; The Post and Courier, Caitlin Byrd; and the South Carolina Daily Gazette. Links are in Sources & related coverage below.

The first order, shown

Page 1 of Judge Richard M. Gergel's August 20, 2025 order in Musgrave v. Mace, Case No. 2:25-1823-RMG, listing the four pending motions and recounting Mace's February 10, 2025 floor speech

Page 1 of the order (Dkt. 43). It lists the motions before the court and recounts that on February 10, 2025, Mace "publicly denounced Plaintiff and three other men by name as alleged sexual predators." Click for full size. The full order (PDF, 15 pages).

Page 15 of the order: the conclusion granting substitution and dismissal, denying discovery, and ordering the action dismissed with prejudice, signed by Judge Gergel

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 on August 20, 2025. Click for full size.

How the first case went

February 10, 2025. On the floor of the House, Mace named four South Carolina men, Musgrave among them, and alleged sexual misconduct. Per the order, she "publicly denounced Plaintiff and three other men by name as alleged sexual predators." All four men deny the allegations.

March 10, 2025. Musgrave gave his first on-camera interview, to CNN's Randi Kaye, aired on Anderson Cooper 360°. Asked whether he had done what Mace described, he answered: "Absolutely not. No, no." Read the CNN interview dispatch for the full segment.

March 14, 2025. Musgrave sued Mace for libel and defamation in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (No. 2:25-cv-01823-RMG), through Bland Richter, LLP. Live 5's Emily Johnson reported that the complaint says he is "forced to utter the words, I am not a rapist, I am not a predator, and I am not a sex offender."

July 11, 2025. The government filed a motion to substitute the United States as the defendant in place of Mace and the Doe defendants. It attached a certification, under the Westfall Act (28 U.S.C. 2679(d)), that Mace and the Does were acting within the scope of their duties (Dkt. 21 and its first attachment). The United States moved to dismiss the same day (Dkt. 22), and Mace separately moved to dismiss the one constitutional claim in the case (Dkt. 24). Live 5 reported on July 28 that Musgrave had filed his response, arguing Mace was not "bulletproof" from liability by virtue of her office. The docket shows his opposition papers filed July 25, 2025 (Dkt. 28 and 30).

August 20, 2025. After a hearing in Charleston, Judge Gergel issued a 15-page order the same day (Dkt. 43):

  • The motion to substitute the United States for Mace was granted. The court held that Mace's House speech and "later rebroadcasts" fell within the scope of her employment, and that "statements made to the press and on social media are within the scope of employment of members of Congress."
  • The United States' motion to dismiss the substituted claims was granted: "Congress has weighed the risks and benefits of the FTCA and concluded that libel and related claims against federal officials acting within the scope of their employment are barred under federal law."
  • Mace's motion to dismiss the constitutional (Bivens) claim was granted, the court citing the rule that "defamation, by itself, is a tort actionable under the laws of most States, but not a constitutional deprivation."
  • Musgrave's motion for limited discovery was denied, because he had not rebutted the government's certification by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • "Based on the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE."

The court was explicit about the cost of that result. Page 9 reads: "Plaintiff alleges that the allegations against him are false, and they have devastated his personal reputation and caused great mental anguish to him and his family. Under the operation of the FTCA, Plaintiff has no civil remedy to hold accountable persons he believes have defamed him."

August 21, 2025. The court entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice (Dkt. 45).

What Mace said

Mace posted about the ruling on X on August 20, 2025, from her official account @RepNancyMace at 12:45 PM ET and, with the same text, from her personal account @NancyMace. The text, verbatim:

"Judge Gergel dismissed Brian Musgrave's baseless defamation suit against me! The court proved the US Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND. They came after me because I stood up for victims and demanded crime be prosecuted. Today's court decision proves their lies and attacks won't break me. I've put my career on the line to fight crime and drafted legislation to strengthen our laws. And I'll never stop fighting for law and order."

Those are Mace's words, and the characterization of the suit as "baseless" is hers. The order itself says nothing of the kind: it ruled on immunity. Live 5 reported she did not attend the hearing and issued a statement.

What Musgrave's lawyers said

Musgrave's attorneys at Bland Richter, LLP, Eric Bland and Ronnie Richter, objected to the result in the press. ABC News 4 quoted Bland: "politicians can say and do anything they want as long as it serves them individually and their agenda, as was endorsed by the court today, and so they can act with impunity." The Post and Courier quoted Bland: "This is just inconceivable to me" and "We've got to dust off and see, but it appears that the courts of the United States are closed to a citizen." Richter told The Post and Courier: "We understood that there was immunity, but not absolute immunity, and there is a difference."

Bland also posted on X that afternoon: "Time to get up dust myself off and not give up until Brian Musgrave name is fully cleared." His earlier statement is here. Musgrave told The Post and Courier: "The truth is I didn't do any of this."

ABC News 4 (WCIV) reports the dismissal, August 2025. Embedded from the station's own YouTube channel. Read the station's story.

Was there an appeal

No notice of appeal appears on the public docket for the first case. That is a statement about the free public (RECAP) copy of the docket, which holds only what has been purchased from PACER, so it is strong evidence but not proof. Six weeks later, the firm announced a different lawsuit.

The second suit

On October 1, 2025, Bland Richter announced a new defamation action by Musgrave "against some of the news outlets that republished as truth the false and defamatory attacks leveled against him by Nancy Mace," in the firm's words. The release named no outlets. The suit was filed that day in York County Common Pleas (No. 2025-CP-46-3829) and removed to federal court on November 12, 2025 as Musgrave v. Herring Networks, Inc. et al., No. 0:25-cv-13373-JDA (D.S.C.), before Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin.

The defendants are Herring Networks, Inc. (the California company behind One America News Network, OAN), OAN host Dan Ball, Louder with Crowder, LLC, podcaster Steven Crowder, and Gerald Morgan Jr. Two broadcasts were at issue, both with Mace as the guest: an April 11, 2025 OAN interview and a May 22, 2025 Louder with Crowder appearance.

What the complaint alleges about the OAN interview. The court's order quotes the complaint's allegation that Ball told Mace: "One of the perverts that you went after when you called them out and doxed them on the house floor finally got arrested. You're getting some satisfaction here, Nancy." The complaint alleges that this referred to Musgrave as a "pervert." That is the plaintiff's allegation as quoted by the court. The court did not decide the claim against Ball on its merits (see below).

What the court quotes from the podcast. The complaint identified two statements. The court quotes the podcast transcript: Morgan said, "[A]gain, these guys . . . [d]eserve every single ounce of punishment that we can get," and Crowder said, "[W]ith that amount of evidence, it would seem like there will be some people . . . put in prison for life."

The September 30, 2026 order, shown

Page 1 of Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin's September 30, 2026 Opinion and Order in Musgrave v. Herring Networks, Case No. 0:25-cv-13373-JDA, listing the motions before the court

Page 1 of the Opinion and Order (Dkt. 50), D.S.C. (Rock Hill Division), September 30, 2026. Click for full size. The full order (PDF, 19 pages).

Page 14 of the same order, in which the court quotes the two podcast statements and holds neither is susceptible to a defamatory meaning as to Plaintiff

Page 14: the court identifies the two statements by Morgan and Crowder and concludes that "neither of the identified statements, when viewed in context, are susceptible to a defamatory meaning as to Plaintiff." Click for full size.

Page 19 of the same order, the conclusion: Herring dismissed without prejudice, summary judgment granted to the podcast defendants, the motion to amend denied, and a show-cause order as to Ball

Page 19, the conclusion, signed by Judge Austin on September 30, 2026. Click for full size.

What the order does, defendant by defendant

Herring Networks (OAN's parent): dismissed without prejudice, for lack of personal jurisdiction. This is not a ruling on the merits. The court wrote that "Plaintiff has not offered any evidence or even alleged any facts that would indicate that Herring directed electronic activity into South Carolina with the intent of engaging in business or other interactions within South Carolina." "Without prejudice" means the dismissal does not by itself bar a new suit elsewhere.

Louder with Crowder, LLC, Steven Crowder and Gerald Morgan Jr.: summary judgment granted. This one is on the merits of the defamation claim, and the ground is meaning, not truth. Of Morgan, the court wrote that his statement "could be reasonably understood only as an assertion that the accused men deserved harsh punishment if they were actually guilty." Of Crowder, the court wrote that his comment "is susceptible only to the meaning that 'that amount of evidence' referred to the amount of evidence that Mace claimed she had, not the amount that actually existed." The court's conclusion: "neither of the identified statements, when viewed in context, are susceptible to a defamatory meaning as to Plaintiff." Because the statements fail on that ground, the claim against the podcast company fails too.

Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim: found moot.

Musgrave's motion to file a second amended complaint: denied (futile as to Herring and the podcast defendants, and denied as to Ball because of the apparent lack of service).

Dan Ball: the court noted the docket shows no proof Ball was ever served, and ordered Musgrave to show cause by October 9, 2026 why Ball should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of timely service.

What happened next

On October 1, 2026, a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed (Dkt. 53). Its text is not available on the free public record, so this page cannot say who filed it, which defendant or defendants it covers, or whether the case is closed. Nor does the free public record show whether Musgrave responded to the show-cause order by October 9. No notice of appeal appears on the free public docket as of October 7, 2026. As with the first case, the free copy holds only what has been purchased, so the live docket on PACER is the authority.

Where it stands

  • Neither court ruled on the truth of Mace's accusations. The first order says so in so many words. The second turned on jurisdiction and on what the podcast hosts' words could reasonably mean.
  • Musgrave denies the allegations and has said so on camera and in his filings. No charge against him appears in the public record.
  • Mace denies wrongdoing and has said she acted in her official capacity as a Member of Congress; the court agreed on the scope-of-employment question, and that finding is what ended the first case.
  • The investigation: CNN and WCIV reported that the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division's investigation named Patrick Bryant as its subject. Bryant denies all criminal allegations.
  • All allegations on every side are contested and unproven in any court. The orders on this page decide questions of law.

Background on the parties: Brian Musgrave and the case hub for Musgrave v. Mace.

Sources & related coverage

The filings themselves:

Coverage of the August 2025 dismissal:

Earlier coverage of the first case:

The second suit:

Posts on X: Mace, official account, Mace, personal account, Bland, statement, Bland, follow-up.