Judge throws out lawsuit against Nancy Mace for speech accusing man of sex crime
A federal judge put an end to a South Carolina man’s lawsuit against U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-Charleston, on Wednesday.
Judge Richard Gergel quickly ruled on a series of motions at the federal courthouse in Charleston that one after another closed off any avenue for Brian Musgrave to sue the Lowcountry congresswoman and candidate for governor for claims she has made accusing him of involvement with sex crimes along with Mace’s ex-fiancé.
Musgrave sued Mace after the Lowcountry congresswoman accused him and three other men of a variety of sexual offenses during a Feb. 10 speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
In her speech, Mace said she found evidence of multiple women and girls being sexually assaulted and videoed without their consent, and alleged she was victimized in the same way. One of the men accused by Mace was her former fiancé, Patrick Bryant.
In his lawsuit, Musgrave says he and Bryant owned a rental property on the Isle of Palms that is the alleged site of some of the crimes Mace spoke about, but he denies any knowledge of or involvement in those offenses. None of the men singled out by Mace have been charged over the allegations.
U.S. government substituted as defendant
Mace had already secured representation by the U.S. attorney’s office for South Carolina for her defense, since Mace claims to have been acting as a member of Congress when she made the allegations against Musgrave.
On Wednesday, assistant U.S. attorney Kim Hamlett successfully argued that the U.S. government should be substituted as the defendant for Mace and unidentified staffers in her congressional office. Neither Hamlett nor Musgrave attorney Ronnie Richter told Judge Gergel that they had identified any case where a member of Congress was sued in any connection to their legislative work where the government had not been substituted as the defendant.
“There have been a lot of pretty outrageous comments by members of Congress where judges have allowed the U.S. government to substitute” for the defendant in other attempted lawsuits, Gergel said.
Now defending the federal government, Hamlett then successfully argued that Musgrave’s claims of libel, defamation and conspiracy would be dismissed as barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act, the law that regulates — and limits — legal claims against the U.S.
Gergel agreed with those arguments as well, closing the door on any potential avenue for Musgrave to be able to sue the feds. At one point, the judge was almost apologetic to Richter as he tried to argue his way out of the restrictions of federal law.
“I know you don’t want to be under the FTCA,” the judge said. “It’s the black hole of plaintiff law.”
At one point, Gergel noted that S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson could likewise make a claim after Mace accused him in her speech of failing to prosecute the accused men, comments the judge said had “echoes of QAnon,” the online conspiracy theory about powerful people covering up the crimes of a supposed network of child sex abusers.
“But does he have a case?” Gergel asked, implying the answer would also be “no.”
Both Mace and Wilson have launched campaigns for the Republican nomination for governor next year. Richter argued that while Wilson is a public official who must meet a higher standard to make a defamation claim, Musgrave is a private citizen with no involvement in politics beyond being friends with a congresswoman’s fiancé.
Repeating allegations away from House floor
While remarks made by members of Congress on the floor of the House of Representatives are protected by the “speech and debate” clause of the Constitution and can’t be reviewed or punished by an outside court, Musgrave’s attorneys contended that Mace has repeated the allegations outside the halls of Congress, including in several social media posts on X, interviews and releases to the media, and a poster with Musgrave’s photo that was displayed outside Mace’s congressional office.
But Gergel ruled that ample federal court precedent has found that kind of conduct is part and parcel of a lawmaker’s legislative duties, and also protected. The judge mentioned again and again that Mace in her February House speech had referenced several pieces of legislation dealing with voyeurism and protecting women and girls from sexual abuse, tying her claims to advancing legislative business.
Musgrave’s attorneys — a team of Richter, Eric Bland and Scott Mongillo — also assert that Mace’s congressional speech on Feb. 10 was retaliation for Bryant failing to settle a financial matter in Mace’s favor following their breakup. This showed an ulterior motive to her allegations, they said. But Gergel ruled even a “mixed motive” would be resolved in Mace’s favor if it also included a congressional duty.
“The speech and debate clause predates the internet,” Bland argued in a last-ditch effort to keep the case alive. “She keeps using this man. ... He’ll go the rest of his life being associated with the words ‘rapist,’ ‘predator’ and ‘sexual trafficker.’”
The only lifeline the judge offered the attorneys was that anyone involved in producing the material against Musgrave who was not a federal employee could still be sued. But Gergel denied their efforts to conduct discovery, requiring Mace or her staffers to sit for depositions or turn over potential evidence, without any reason to believe they would be able to identify a culpable individual.
The attorneys had asked that Mace be required to turn over any evidence to support her allegations against Musgrave, any communications regarding her decision to include Musgrave in her floor speech, any communications about her financial dispute with Bryant, and that Mace and potentially others be required to sit for depositions.
“Discovery will demonstrate that there would never have been a floor speech or the other extra-curricular activities that form the basis of Musgrave’s Complaint had Patrick Bryant succumbed to Ms. Mace’s financial demands,” Musgrave’s attorneys argue in legal filings.
Attorneys ‘dust off,’ Mace celebrates
But with that opportunity denied them, it was unclear after the hearing what legal moves remain for the Fort Mill man’s claims. His attorneys said they would have to “dust off” from Wednesday’s rulings before they decide on next steps, but conceded their client may be left to fend for himself in the court of public opinion against the claims of a U.S. representative.
“She could say the same thing about Ronnie or me with absolute immunity,” Bland said following Wednesday’s hearing. “It seems the courts have been closed to a citizen who was the subject of this attack.”
Many members of Musgrave’s family were present in the courtroom for Wednesday’s hearing. Some of them had tears in their eyes as they left.
Gergel said the law gave him little choice but to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.
“The only thing worse than [congressional] immunity would be no immunity at all,” he said. “Then all members of Congress would do is defend themselves in lawsuits.”
Mace took to social media to celebrate the judge’s ruling.
“They came after me because I stood up for victims and demanded crime be prosecuted,” she posted. “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.”
This isn’t the only case stemming from Mace’s controversial floor speech. Separately, Mace is suing another man she accused in her floor speech, Eric Bowman, for defaming her in a series of X posts, accusing the congresswoman of influencing the awarding of contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs, including to a company operated by Bowman’s estranged wife. Bowman was arrested by Lowcountry police Wednesday on an unrelated domestic violence charge.
This story was originally published August 20, 2025 at 1:36 PM.
.jpg)