Berg v. Bryant (and Bryant's Third-Party Complaint against Mace)
Civil suit filed May 29, 2025 by Alexis Berg against Patrick Bryant and others; Bryant impleaded Rep. Nancy Mace as Third-Party Defendant. The public docket includes a November 17, 2025 order ending pseudonym use, a gag order, and a temporary restraining order.
Alexis Berg filed this civil action on May 29, 2025, and the case was initially captioned under the pseudonym "Jane Doe" while her motion to proceed anonymously was pending. An Amended Summons and Complaint followed on June 10, 2025. On November 17, 2025, the court denied that motion and ordered her identified by her true name (see below). Defendants named by Berg include Patrick Bryant and several associated individuals and entities.
On November 6, 2025, Bryant filed a Third-Party Complaint in the same action, impleading Rep. Nancy Mace and Melissa Britton as Third-Party Defendants. Bryant was represented by Saxton & Stump, LLC (counsel Rene Stuhr Dukes). Mace accepted service of the Third-Party Complaint on November 20, 2025, and filed her Answer to the Third-Party Complaint on December 19, 2025. Her Answer asserted, among other defenses, the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and Westfall Act preemption.
All allegations in any pleading are the contentions of the filing party and are not findings of fact. Where a party has denied an allegation, that denial is part of the record. Mace has denied Bryant's allegations.
Assigned to Judge Hocker by the Supreme Court
This case is one of six related Charleston County matters placed under the Honorable Donald B. Hocker by a single order of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, signed by Chief Justice John W. Kittredge on August 27, 2025 and e-filed September 2, 2025. Captioned in the order under the plaintiff's pseudonym as "Jane Doe v. Patrick Bryant, John Osborne, Eric Bowman, and Pommer Group, LLC," this matter (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) was among the cases over which the order vested Judge Hocker with "exclusive jurisdiction to hear and dispose of." See the Judge Hocker profile for the full order and the list of all six consolidated matters.
De-anonymization Order (November 17, 2025)
On November 17, 2025, Judge Hocker entered an order that ended the use of pseudonyms in the case. The order denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym and granted defendant Bryant's motion to identify the "Jane Doe Witness," finding that the identities of both the plaintiff and the witness "are already known to all Parties and the public such that neither Plaintiff nor Jane Doe Witness have any privacy interest to preserve." From the date of the order, all future filings were required to use the parties' true and correct names. The order was e-filed at 11:05 a.m. on November 17, 2025.
Reporting on the ruling and the same-day TRO motion: ABC News 4 and FITSNews. See the dispatch: No More Jane Does: the de-anonymization order.
Page 1 of the de-anonymization order, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, entered November 17, 2025. The court denied the pseudonym motion and granted the motion to identify.
Gag Order (November 26, 2025)
Judge Hocker issued a Gag Order on November 26, 2025, sua sponte, that is, on the court's own initiative, not in response to a pending motion. The order enjoined all parties, their agents, representatives, and attorneys from making or publishing any comment about any aspect of the case, any party, any attorney, or any person connected to the case through any form of communication, other than attorney-client communications. The order was limited in duration to approximately three weeks pending a hearing, but could be extended.
Mace subsequently moved to vacate the Gag Order (December 29, 2025), arguing that it violated her First Amendment rights and, as to her congressional statements, the Speech or Debate Clause.
Temporary Restraining Order (December 9, 2025)
A Temporary Restraining Order was entered on December 9, 2025. That filing is on the public docket as Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124.
Supplemental Gag Order (January 13, 2026)
A Supplemental Gag Order was entered on January 13, 2026.
Motion for Contempt (January 12, 2026)
On January 12, 2026, Bryant filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause / Motion for Civil Contempt in the state-court action.
Federal Removal
On January 29, 2026, Mace filed a pro se Notice of Removal to federal court. On September 4, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted remand and returned the case to this court, holding Mace's removal untimely. See the separate Mace Federal Removal case page for the federal docket, and the dispatch A federal judge sent the case Mace removed pro se back to state court.
Third-Party Neutral over the shared Google Drive (June 2026)
The discovery fight over the more than 11,000 electronic files in "Mace's Google Drive" spans this case and the related Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671). On June 9, 2026, Judge Hocker entered an Order Regarding Third-Party Neutral providing that documents already produced from the Drive "in this case and in Jane Doe v. Patrick Bryant 2025-CP-10-3124 shall remain in production in both matters," with no claw-back, and routing the unproduced materials to a neutral for a confidential, Attorney's Eyes Only review. On June 16, 2026, the court appointed former Circuit Court judge Kristi Harrington as that neutral. Neither order made any finding on privilege, admissibility, or ownership, and both note that Mace objected. See the dispatch Court appoints former Judge Kristi Harrington as third-party neutral, which reproduces both orders.
The filings on the record
The signature documents in this case are public court records. The Gag Order and Mace's sworn Answer are reproduced below; every primary filing hosted on Maceopedia is linked beneath.
Page 1 of the Gag Order, signed by Judge Donald B. Hocker sua sponte on November 26, 2025.
Page 1 of Mace's Answer to Bryant's Third-Party Complaint, filed December 19, 2025.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina order vesting Judge Hocker with exclusive jurisdiction over this and five related cases, signed by Chief Justice John W. Kittredge, August 27, 2025.
Documents hosted here (public court records):
- Order of the Supreme Court of South Carolina assigning the case to Judge Hocker (PDF, 3 pages), signed by Chief Justice John W. Kittredge August 27, 2025, e-filed September 2, 2025.
- Order Denying Pseudonym Motion and Granting Motion to Identify (PDF, 4 pages), signed and e-filed November 17, 2025. Ends pseudonym use; all parties must use true names in future filings.
- Gag Order (PDF, 4 pages), signed November 26, 2025, e-filed December 9, 2025.
- Supplemental Gag Order (PDF, 3 pages), signed January 9, 2026, e-filed January 13, 2026.
- Third-Party Defendant Nancy Mace's Answer to the Third-Party Complaint (PDF, 27 pages), filed December 19, 2025 (amended January 15, 2026).
- Bryant’s Response and Opposition to the Motion for a Confidentiality Order (PDF, 48 pages), e-filed December 22, 2025. Bryant opposes a blanket confidentiality designation and agrees only to confidentiality of medical records. Exhibits include counsel emails (Exhibit A), the April 2024 Mace-Berg recording (Exhibit C, cover only), the Long affidavit (Exhibit D), and Mace-Berg and Britton-Berg texts (Exhibits E and F). These are Bryant’s contentions; Berg and Mace deny wrongdoing and the litigation is ongoing.
- Motion for Sanctions against Mace and her counsel (PDF, 60 pages), filed January 15, 2026.
- Mace's pro se Letter to Judge Hocker and Notice of Removal (PDF, 5 pages), letter dated January 21, 2026, stamped FILED January 22, 2026.
Selected Docket Entries
The table below is a representative selection of substantive filings on the public docket; it does not include every administrative NEF or scheduling entry.
| Date | Filing | Filed by |
|---|---|---|
| 2025-05-29 | Summons & Complaint + Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym | Plaintiff Berg |
| 2025-06-10 | Amended Summons and Complaint | Plaintiff Berg |
| 2025-07-11 | Motion to Dismiss | Defendant |
| 2025-07-22 | Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Claims Against Defendant; Order Denying Motion for Extension of Time to Respond | Court |
| 2025-08-04 | Multiple motions (Admit General Sessions Evidence; Intervene; Extension) | Various |
| 2025-09-02 | Order of the Supreme Court of S.C. placing this and five related cases under Judge Hocker (signed Aug. 27, 2025) | Court (Chief Justice Kittredge) |
| 2025-10-06 | Protective Order entered; Order Denying GLT2 Motion to Dismiss | Court |
| 2025-11-05 | Answer to Amended Complaint; Notice of Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; Notice of Motion to Strike | Defendant Bryant |
| 2025-11-06 | Third-Party Summons to Nancy Ruth Mace; Third-Party Summons to Melissa Britton | Third-Party Plaintiff Bryant |
| 2025-11-17 | Order denying Plaintiff's motion to proceed under pseudonym and granting Defendant Bryant's motion to identify "Jane Doe Witness." All future filings must use parties' true names. Bryant's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order also filed. | Court / Bryant |
| 2025-11-20 | Acceptance of Service on Nancy Ruth Mace (Third-Party Defendant) | Bryant / Court |
| 2025-11-26 | Gag Order signed by Judge Hocker, sua sponte | Court |
| 2025-12-04 | Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas; Motion to Dismiss with Request for Sanctions | Parties |
| 2025-12-09 | Amended Counterclaims & Third-Party Complaint filed; Temporary Restraining Order entered | Bryant / Court |
| 2025-12-19 | Third-Party Answer to Third-Party Complaint (Mace) | Third-Party Defendant Mace |
| 2025-12-22 | Response and Opposition to Motion for a Confidentiality Order (with Exhibits A-F) | Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Bryant (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani) |
| 2025-12-29 | Mace's Motion to Vacate Gag Order; Motions to Dismiss filed | Mace / Parties |
| 2026-01-12 | Motion for Order to Show Cause / Motion for Civil Contempt | Third-Party Plaintiff Bryant |
| 2026-01-13 | Supplemental Gag Order | Court |
| 2026-01-15 | Motion for Sanctions; Amended Answer to Third-Party Amended Complaint | Parties |
| 2026-01-21 | Notice of Removal (state court notice) | Third-Party Defendant Mace (pro se) |
| 2026-01-23 | Order Relieving Counsel for Nancy Mace; Order on Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas | Court |
| 2026-01-29 | Notice of Removal to District Court (supplemental); federal case opened | Mace (pro se) |
Sources & Related Coverage
Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124 is searchable on the South Carolina Judicial Branch Public Index at publicindex.sccourts.org by case number. The federal removal proceeding is docketed as Case No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC (D.S.C.) and searchable on PACER. All filings listed above are public records.
Related on this site: the first recorded Mace-Berg call · watch the money-line clip.
Related Dispatches
Nancy Mace loses in federal court: Bryant's suit accusing her of defamation and a blackmail conspiracy moves forward
Nancy Mace has lost in federal court. On September 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks rejected her pro se bid to move the case out of state court, ruling her removal untimely 'by several measures,' and remanded Berg v. Bryant to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. That sends Patrick Bryant's third-party case against Mace forward in state court, a case that accuses her of defamation and of a civil conspiracy to hack his phone and blackmail him into signing over property. The Court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation with modifications, overruled Mace's objections, denied her motion for oral argument, and terminated her duplicate federal case as moot. The ruling is procedural: it does not reach the merits, and Mace's immunity defenses travel with the case. The order (ECF No. 36) is reproduced below. The allegations are disputed and unproven; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
Can Nancy Mace Make a Living Off Her New Podcast?
A current staffer says Nancy Mace is auditioning for a media career to 'pay the bills' after she leaves Congress in January 2027. So Maceopedia ran the numbers on the video she posted August 11, and on the operation around it. The video even opens like a YouTuber's channel: a 'GET MACED' logo bumper, a beach-and-poolside swimsuit montage, and a spoken 'hit the subscribe button' pitch, all before a word of politics. The same clip drew about 153,000 views on X and about 15,000 on YouTube, a ten-to-one gap that shows how much of her reach is rented from the platform and the office rather than owned. Former staffers have also alleged, in reporting Mace denies, that some of her online support was manufactured through staff-run burner accounts. Her personal channel has 22,300 subscribers; her official House channel's recent videos draw 130 to 1,400 views apiece. Measured against the political podcasters who actually earn a living, the picture is the streaming economy's brutal power law: a handful of stars capture nearly everything, and everyone else earns close to nothing. At her demonstrated scale, the direct economics of 'this type of podcast' land around a low-six-figure business at best, roughly her current $174,000 congressional salary or less, and that is before the reach she is renting expires with the seat. On top of the math sits a legal problem: the defamation defense keeping her afloat right now depends entirely on her holding federal office.
"The one I'm already in": Mace's Senate withdrawal was a statement about the case, made under a gag order that has never been lifted
Rep. Nancy Mace's July 20, 2026 announcement that she will not run for the Senate was, in both the video and the written statement, an announcement about litigation. She said she was leaving the race 'not because I'm backing down from a fight, but because the one I'm already in matters right now,' told supporters she has 'unfinished business,' and dated that business to the day she 'stood on that House floor.' That was February 10, 2025, when she named four men and told them they had 'bought yourself a one-way ticket to hell.' Three of those men are parties to Berg v. Bryant, where a gag order barring comment on the case was extended indefinitely in December 2025 and, on the documentary record, has never been vacated, dissolved, or found expired. It has also never been enforced. Mace contends it is unconstitutional.
Pro Se: Nancy Mace has lost her lawyers again, this time in her own defamation suit against Eric Bowman
On July 6, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace filed a Motion to Lift Stay in her own defamation case against Eric Bowman, and she filed it pro se, representing herself. On the coversheet she crossed out the entire 'Plaintiff's Attorney' block by hand, wrote 'N/A,' and wrote 'Pro Se.' The motion states she 'is now proceeding pro se in this matter, as reflected in the Notice filed June 30, 2026.' It is the second time in this cluster of cases she has gone without counsel. The three attorneys who filed and briefed the Bowman case for her, local counsel Andrew B. Moorman, Sr. and the two Washington lawyers she brought in pro hac vice, William M. Sullivan, Jr. and Alex G. Anderson, are no longer her counsel of record. A separate notice filed the same day names all three and asks the Clerk of Court to remove them. The complete eight-page motion, and the counsel-withdrawal notice, are reproduced below. Allegations on every side are contested and unproven; Bowman denies Mace's claims and has moved to dismiss, and Mace denies Bowman's.
A federal magistrate recommends sending the case Mace removed to federal court back to state court, finding her pro se removal 'untimely': 'it is RECOMMENDED that Bryant's Motion to Remand be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to state court.'
On June 17, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and Recommendation in the case Rep. Nancy Mace removed to federal court (Berg v. Bryant, docketed federally as No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC), recommending that the case be remanded to state court. The recommendation is procedural, not a ruling on the truth of anyone's allegations: the magistrate found that Mace, who removed the case and briefed the remand motion pro se, was on notice the case was removable by December 12, 2025, so her January 29, 2026 removal of the entire case was untimely. A Report and Recommendation is not a final order; the parties have 14 days to object, and U.S. District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks will make the final decision. The underlying allegations are disputed and contested; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
Court appoints former Judge Kristi Harrington as third-party neutral to sort the 11,000+ disputed files in Mace's Google Drive
On June 16, 2026, Judge Donald B. Hocker appointed Kristi Harrington, a Charleston attorney and former South Carolina Circuit Court judge, to serve as a 'third-party neutral' in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2025-CP-10-2671), one of the cluster of cases tied to Rep. Nancy Mace and her former fiance, Patrick Bryant. Harrington's task is to review the more than 11,000 electronic files in what the court calls 'Mace's Google Drive,' files that both Mace and Bryant claim to own, and decide which, if any, must be turned over in discovery. The court split her fees between the two camps, warned the volume could make the process 'very cost-prohibitive,' and entered the order over Mace's objection. The order makes no finding on privilege, admissibility, ownership, or wrongdoing; the underlying allegations remain contested and unproven.
Under a gag order barring 'any comment about any aspect of this case,' Mace uses her televised concession speech to talk about 'predators that got away in my case'
On the night of June 9, 2026, after conceding the South Carolina Republican gubernatorial primary, Nancy Mace told her Charleston election-night crowd, and a live television audience, that she had talked to Attorney General Alan Wilson 'about my case' and would help his administration ensure that 'predators that got away in my case … we finally put criminals behind bars.' Mace is a third-party defendant in Berg v. Bryant, where a November 26, 2025 gag order bars every party from 'making or publishing any comment about any aspect of this case' or about any party or person connected to it, and a January 12, 2026 civil-contempt motion over her earlier public statements remains pending. Both orders are reproduced in full below. Mace contends the gag order is unconstitutional; all underlying allegations are unproven and contested, and no court has ruled on the June 9 remarks.
Gretchen Carlson, who helped write the Speak Out Act, files a sworn declaration backing Alexis Berg
On June 8, 2026, Alexis Berg's counsel filed a reply brief in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (No. 2025-CP-10-2671) arguing that the federal Speak Out Act makes the non-disparagement clause ADW is suing on judicially unenforceable, because the dispute before the court involves sexual-assault allegations. Attached was a sworn declaration from Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox News anchor whose 2016 case helped inspire the Act, who states she has met with Berg and that 'this is exactly the situation we fought to address,' and offers to testify. ADW argues the Act does not apply. The motion is undecided; the underlying allegations are contested and denied.
Leaked Call Details Origins of Nancy Mace's 'Scorched Earth' Campaign
FITSNews obtained a recording of an approximately 45-minute call between Mace and Alexis 'Ali' Berg, the woman whose allegations became central to Mace's public campaign against her former fiancé Patrick Bryant; raising questions about how the allegations evolved from a private conversation into a national political narrative.
'To Simply Make Up a Legal Standard Is Inexcusable': Opposing Counsel Asks Court to Sanction Mace's Pro Se TRO Filing
In a March 5, 2026 response filed in ADW v. Berg, Assignment Desk Works' counsel Rene Dukes told a Charleston court that Rep. Nancy Mace's pro se emergency TRO motion cited a four-part legal standard that does not exist under South Carolina law, misrepresented a second case as supporting a doctrine it does not mention, and contradicted itself on whether an attorney-client relationship ever existed. Dukes asked the court to deny the motion and sanction Mace under Rule 11, the rule that requires any litigant, represented or not, to certify that a filing has good-faith legal and factual support.
For All the Accusations, 'Not One Woman Other Than Defendant Has Brought an Action Against Bryant, Including Mace'
In a two-page response filed March 4, 2026, ADW's counsel Rene Stuhr Dukes told a Charleston court that despite a coordinated effort by Ali Berg and Nancy Mace to level sexual-crime accusations against Patrick Bryant, no woman — including Mace herself — has filed a legal action against him. The filing is opposing counsel's argument, not a judicial finding; Bryant's denials and an open SLED investigation remain part of the record.
Bryant's Own Lawyer Alleges Mace 'Stole' His Phone and Hired a PI to Extract Its Data
In a public court filing, Patrick Bryant's attorney asserted in an email exhibit that Nancy Mace took Bryant's Samsung Galaxy S22 from his home and hired a private investigator to copy files off it. The allegations are unproven and contested; Berg's motion argues that Bryant's own pleadings directly contradict the account.
Opposing Counsel Tells Court Mace's Motion Is 'Intended to Delay This Litigation, Harass Plaintiff, Its Members, and Agents'
In a February 2026 court filing, ADW's counsel Rene Dukes argued that Rep. Nancy Mace had no legal standing to intervene in the ADW v. Berg breach-of-contract case and that her motion was frivolous, filed solely to harass and delay. Dukes also noted that Mace's filing invoked her own congressional floor speech, in which she had named private citizens who are members of the plaintiff.
Mace Calls ADW's Breach-of-Contract Suit a 'Fishing Expedition,' Moves to Dismiss It, Despite Not Being a Party
On January 27, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace, not a party to ADW v. Berg, a breach-of-contract case between her company and a former employee, filed an Emergency Motion to Intervene, seeking to dismiss the suit, impose sanctions on both sides' attorneys, and block all discovery. Mace signed the motion herself, as a pro se litigant, and certified that she had skipped the required meet-and-confer with opposing counsel because, in her judgment, it 'would not be productive.' ADW v. Berg is a civil case in Charleston County; no findings of fact have been made.
'This Court Now Stands as the Only Barrier': Mace Files Sworn Emergency Motion to Gag Opposing Lawyers
On January 27, 2026, Nancy Mace filed a sworn, verified Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in the ADW v. Berg civil case, asking a Charleston County judge to bar opposing counsel, Patrick Bryant, and Berg's attorneys from accessing or using materials she called privileged. The motion — signed under oath by Mace personally — also places her gubernatorial candidacy on the official court record.
Civil Case Tied to Nancy Mace Careens Deeper Into Chaos
Judge Hocker ordered materials subpoenaed by plaintiff Alexis Berg's attorneys turned over to the court for private review, as dueling emergency motions clashed over whether materials Mace voluntarily shared in June 2025 could be used in litigation, with Mace, now representing herself, filing an 82-page emergency motion to reclaim them as privileged.
Mace voluntarily shared her Google Drive as 'helpful' evidence, then sent 'threatening' letters demanding it back
In a January 2026 emergency motion, Ali Berg's attorney Marybeth Mullaney told a Charleston court that Congresswoman Nancy Mace had voluntarily handed over her Google Drive in June 2025, saying she believed it would be 'helpful' to Berg's defense, and then reversed course, sending what the motion calls 'threatening emails and letters' demanding Berg's counsel stop using the materials, return or destroy them, and 'claw back' items already produced in discovery. The motion asks the court to step in and decide whether Berg may keep using what Mace herself provided.
Nancy Mace: 'I WILL NOT BE SILENCED'
Mace filed a five-page letter attacking Judge Hocker as running a 'kangaroo court,' fired her attorneys, announced plans to represent herself, and declared she would not comply with the gag order, while simultaneously seeking removal of the case to federal court.
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.
Sanctions Showdown: New Filing Accuses Nancy Mace's Lawyers of Fabricating Legal Citations
Patrick Bryant filed a motion seeking Rule 11 sanctions after Mace's attorneys allegedly submitted fabricated case citations and false quotations in a court memorandum, then distributed an 'amended' version without disclosing the original errors, with the filing suggesting AI-generated legal research as a possible explanation.
Bryant moves for sanctions over 'fake, AI generated citations' in Mace legal brief, and a cover-up that compounded them
Patrick Bryant filed a Rule 11 sanctions motion in the Berg v. Bryant litigation alleging that Rep. Nancy Mace's attorney submitted AI-fabricated case citations in a court brief, then, the motion alleges, attempted to conceal the error by filing an amended brief that itself allegedly continued to use fabricated citations. Bryant's motion documents the alleged cover-up paragraph by paragraph. Mace and her attorney D. Craig Brown dispute the allegations; no court has ruled on the motion.
Gag Order Showdown: New Motion Targets Nancy Mace
Attorneys for Patrick Bryant and Eric Bowman filed a contempt motion seeking civil sanctions, and possible incarceration, against Mace for allegedly violating the court-ordered gag order within hours of its issuance through social media posts, campaign emails, and congressional newsletters.
While the gag order holds, Mace promotes her 'Predators Act' as 'deeply personal'
On January 11, 2026, with the Berg v. Bryant gag order in effect and days before the court's supplemental order, Mace promoted her 'Preventing Prosecutors from Protecting Predators Act' from her verified @RepNancyMace account, calling it 'deeply personal' and tying it to 'trauma' she says she experienced 'two years ago.' Opposing counsel flagged the post as a continued public statement about matters connected to the case.
While the gag order holds, Mace proposes Aggravated Voyeurism Act and ties it to her 'personal experiences' as a victim
On January 3, 2026, with the Berg v. Bryant gag order in effect, Rep. Nancy Mace announced the Aggravated Voyeurism Act at the South Carolina statehouse and publicly tied it to her 'personal experiences' as a self-described victim of voyeurism. The announcement was not cited in the contempt motion filed January 12, 2026; it is presented here as a public statement made during the order's effective period. Mace disputes the validity and scope of the gag order.
A pinned post viewed 20,000+ times: Mace calls South Carolina a 'pedophile paradise' while the gag order is in effect
On December 31, 2025, from her verified @RepNancyMace account, Mace published and pinned a post attacking the South Carolina Attorney General, calling the state a 'pedophile paradise' at a time when a gag order in Berg v. Bryant was in effect. The post reportedly re-shared content from her December 27, 2025 video. A contempt motion filed January 12, 2026 attaches it as Exhibit 9 and notes the post had been viewed more than 20,000 times. Mace disputes the validity of the gag order and its application to her.
Bowman's lawyer reports a December 27 Instagram video to the judge as a gag-order violation
On December 27, 2025, while the Berg v. Bryant gag order was in effect, Mace posted a video on Instagram from @repnancymace; counsel for co-defendant Eric Bowman, Robert Merting, emailed Judge Hocker on December 29 to report it, and Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion attaches it as Exhibits 5-7, contending it referred to Bowman by name in terms implying criminal conduct 'that has not been alleged in this litigation.'
Bryant's counsel to Berg's attorney: 'Describing in detail what I contend is confidential before the Order is in place would defeat the very purpose of having a confidentiality order'
On December 22, 2025, Patrick Bryant's attorneys at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani filed a seven-page opposition to Berg's motion for a blanket confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124. The brief argues that the photographs and recordings Berg now seeks to seal were already made public by Rep. Nancy Mace, with Berg's consent, during Mace's February and May 2025 congressional speeches. Bryant's counsel agrees that Berg's medical and therapy records should be confidential, but opposes a blanket designation. Attached as Exhibit A is a 23-page compilation of counsel emails documenting a six-week dispute over what, if anything, required protection. All allegations in the underlying litigation are disputed and contested; Bryant denies the claims against him; Berg, Mace, and all named parties deny Bryant's allegations; no matter has been adjudicated.
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.
'There are at least two people in Mace's car': Bryant's counsel refuses to delete the recording, and announces an amended complaint
The recording of Nancy Mace's first phone call with Ali Berg, produced by Berg's counsel in the ADW v. Berg civil case, quickly became a courtroom fight. When Berg's counsel designated it confidential, Bryant's counsel refused to delete it, argued witnesses in the car undermined any privacy claim, and announced he would amend the complaint against Mace based on its contents.
Judge issues gag order restricting Nancy Mace and others from speaking about ongoing lawsuits
The Post and Courier reports that Judge Hocker imposed a sua sponte gag order barring Mace and eight other parties from publicly discussing two related civil lawsuits, following her February 2025 House floor speech accusing four men of sexual exploitation.
Gagged: Judge Issues Order in Nancy Mace Case
Retired S.C. circuit court judge Donald B. Hocker issued a gag order prohibiting Mace and other parties to the Berg-Bryant civil litigation from making any public statements about the cases, barring speech across all platforms including social media.
While under the gag order, Mace's congressional office sends a mass newsletter about the case: 'I WILL NOT be silenced.'
On December 1, 2025, while the Berg v. Bryant gag order was in effect, a mass email newsletter from Rep. Nancy Mace's congressional office, headlined 'Rep. Nancy Mace says 2 more women accuse her ex-fiancé of abuse,' named Patrick Bryant, recited unproven allegations, and declared 'I WILL NOT be silenced.' Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion attaches the newsletter as Exhibit 8, contending it violated the gag order.
Two days into the gag order, Mace posts: 'IMPEACH ALL CORRUPT JUDGES', 'especially including those in South Carolina SPECIFICALLY.'
On November 28, 2025, two days after Judge Hocker entered the sua sponte gag order in Berg v. Bryant, Mace posted from her verified @RepNancyMace account calling to impeach 'all corrupt judges,' adding in the same thread 'especially including those in South Carolina SPECIFICALLY.' Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion makes the post Exhibit 4 and contends it violated the gag order.
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.
'Where is the Video?': Court Filings Challenge Nancy Mace's Story
Court filings reveal that even the plaintiff's own attorney acknowledged to the court that he did not have the video Mace claimed to have discovered; Bryant's counterclaim accuses Mace of allegedly accessing his phone without authorization, and the article reports his request for a TRO to compel in-camera review of the alleged evidence.
Patrick Bryant: 'Today I authorized my attorneys to file a temporary restraining order against Nancy Ruth Mace'
On November 17, 2025, Judge Donald B. Hocker entered an order in Berg v. Bryant ending pseudonym use in the case, ruling that the identities of the plaintiff and a witness were already known to the public. Bryant announced a temporary restraining order motion the same day.
New Filings Accuse Nancy Mace of Fabricating Sexual Assault Claims
FITSNews covered Bryant's third-party complaint accusing Mace, Melissa Britton, and Jane Doe of conspiring to fabricate sexual assault allegations for personal and political gain. Bryant denied all underlying allegations. Mace denied Bryant's account and called the filing an attempt to pay her again. All allegations are contested; litigation is active.
Ex-fiancé sues Rep. Nancy Mace, claims she fabricated sexual assault allegations
Local Charleston television station Live 5 News was the first outlet to publish Bryant's lawsuit against Mace alleging she fabricated sexual assault claims. All allegations are contested; Mace denied Bryant's account; litigation is active.
S.C. Chief Justice Consolidates Cases Involving Nancy Mace, Former Fiancé
South Carolina Chief Justice John Kittredge assigned retired circuit judge Donald B. Hocker to oversee five civil lawsuits and two criminal indictments stemming from Mace's February 2025 House floor speech, with the order noting that additional civil lawsuits were expected and could be added to the docket.
Mace's own motion shows she signed a quitclaim deed to her ex-fiancé on Feb. 13, 2025, three days after accusing him of crimes on the House floor
Mace's June 27, 2025 motion to enforce her settlement with Brendan (Patrick) Bryant documents that she executed a quitclaim deed transferring the beach house to him on Feb. 13, 2025, days after her Feb. 10 floor speech, while their property settlement was still being carried out.
Text messages show draft complaint revised line by line, with edits including: 'change statehouse floor to floor of the United States House of Representatives'
Exhibit E to Bryant's December 22, 2025 opposition to a confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant is a set of text-message screenshots between a contact identified as 'N M' and Alexis Berg, dated Monday, May 26, 2025. The thread includes an attachment titled 'Proposed Complaint, Ali's edits.docx' (228 KB), followed by a series of messages that walk through the draft complaint bullet by bullet, proposing specific textual changes. Bryant contends in the filing that these texts show Rep. Nancy Mace was 'actively drafting and revising the allegations' in Berg's complaint. Berg and Mace deny improper coordination; Berg's counsel has described any such suggestion as baseless. The litigation is ongoing and the allegations are unproven.
Under oath, former Nancy Mace strategist says SC congresswoman asked him to 'blackmail' her ex
Under oath in a deposition, Mace's former campaign strategist Wesley Donehue testified that she asked him to 'blackmail' her ex-fiancé Patrick Bryant over property and photos, not to contact police, and that he refused. Mace contests the characterization; all parties deny the most serious allegations; litigation is ongoing.
Bombshell Deposition: Nancy Mace's Former Strategist Unloads
FITSNews broke the Donehue deposition story two days before the Post and Courier, publishing lengthy excerpts of Donehue's sworn testimony that Mace pressed him to blackmail Bryant and that the original complaint contained no rape or sex-trafficking claims. Mace denies the characterization; all parties are adverse in ongoing civil litigation.
Nancy Mace Parades Her Own Naked Photos in Bizarre Hearing
Mace displayed before a House Oversight Committee hearing what she described as a silhouette image she said depicted her, allegedly taken without her consent by her ex-fiancé and others. Her ex-fiancé and the other accused men deny all allegations. Litigation is ongoing.
Exhibit F: The Britton Texts Bryant Says Show No Evidence Was Ever Delivered
Attached to Bryant's December 22, 2025 public opposition to a confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant, Exhibit F is a set of text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg spanning March through May 2025. Bryant contends the messages show that Britton refused to provide Berg with any promised evidence of the alleged assault. Berg and Britton deny wrongdoing; Berg's counsel has called any suggestion of improper coordination baseless. The exhibit pages carry a CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by Berg's counsel, and the confidentiality dispute is itself before the court.
Mace's own defamation complaint puts her House-floor accusations, and the men's furious replies, into the public record
Suing Eric Bowman for defamation on May 12, 2025, Mace's complaint confirms she 'identified four individuals' from the House floor and reproduces, verbatim, the very accusations she calls false, including claims she steered VA contracts and 'destroy[ed] innocent men with zero evidence, zero charges.'
Rep. Nancy Mace details accusations of rape and sexual abuse in a speech from the House floor
Mace used a 50-plus-minute House floor speech to accuse four named men, including her ex-fiancé Patrick Bryant, of rape, sex trafficking, and other crimes. All four men categorically denied the allegations to NBC. The speech triggered multiple defamation lawsuits and is central to ongoing litigation; all allegations are contested and unproven.
Ten months before accusing him from the House floor, Mace sued her ex-fiancé to split the beach house they owned together
On April 2, 2024, Mace filed a partition action against Brendan (Patrick) Bryant to divide or sell a jointly owned Isle of Palms beach house. Her own complaint records that she and the man she would later accuse of crimes each held 'an undivided one half' interest in the property.