Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.)
Rep. Nancy Mace's pro se removal of Berg v. Bryant to federal court, filed January 29, 2026; assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC in the District of South Carolina.
On January 29, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace filed a pro se Notice of Removal removing Berg v. Bryant, No. 2025-CP-10-03124 (Charleston County Court of Common Pleas), to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, where it was assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC. The case is assigned to United States District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks (BHH), with all pretrial proceedings referred to United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry (MHC).
Mace filed an Amended Notice of Removal on February 3, 2026, and a Supplemental Notice of Removal on January 23, 2026 (filed in the state court). The removal was filed from Mace's campaign office address (295 Seven Farms Drive, Suite C-186, Charleston, S.C. 29492) using a campaign email address.
All characterizations of the legal arguments below reflect the positions taken by the respective parties in their filed motions; they are not findings by this wiki or the court. The six-page notice itself (the document that opened the federal case) is reproduced below and is available as a PDF.
The Notice of Removal, as filed
Rep. Mace signed and filed the Notice of Removal pro se. The notice body is reproduced below in full; its 100-plus pages of attached state-court exhibits are omitted here. The original notice-body PDF is available here.
Page 1, "REPRESENTATIVE NANCY RUTH MACE'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL," stamped FILED January 29, 2026. Paragraph 1 removes "the Order to Show Cause and Motion for Civil Contempt" filed against her in the state action "[c]onsistent with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1446."
Page 2, Mace identifies the January 12, 2026 contempt motion (Exhibit A), the state-court docket sheet (Exhibit B) and the Gag Order and its extension (Exhibits C, D), then argues removal is "appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)" because the contempt motion "arises out of statements that she has made in her official capacity as a Member of Congress," and asserts the removal was "timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1)."
Page 3, the signature block: "/s/ Rep. Nancy Mace / Pro Se," filed from her Seven Farms Drive office in Charleston.
Removal Timing
Mace was served the Third-Party Complaint in the state action on November 20, 2025. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a defendant has 30 days from receipt of the initial pleading to remove. Mace's removal was filed on January 29, 2026, approximately 70 days after service.
Mace's position (per her ECF 19 Opposition to Remand) is that Bryant's January 12, 2026 Motion for Civil Contempt constituted a new and separately removable paper that restarted the 30-day clock under § 1446(b)(3), and that the entire case was inextricably intertwined with her congressional duties.
Bryant's reply (ECF 21) contests the timeliness of the removal, arguing that Mace's own December 12, 2025 Answer had already asserted FTCA / Westfall / Speech or Debate defenses, which, Bryant argues, demonstrates that the federal basis for removal was known at the time of service.
Basis for Removal Asserted
Mace's Notice of Removal asserted federal-officer removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. I, § 6), arguing that her conduct was undertaken in her official capacity as a Member of Congress.
Bryant opposed removal and moved for remand, arguing that the removal was untimely and that Mace's relevant conduct was personal, not official. In support, Bryant cited the Pittman affidavit filed in a related matter, in which Mace's former housekeeper attested that Mace's inquiries about Bryant were "strictly personal" and had "no connection to her official duties."
State-Court Effect
Following the filing of the Notice of Removal on January 21, 2026 (state-court notice), Judge Hocker was informed by letter dated January 22, 2026. The state court proceedings in No. 2025-CP-10-03124 continued on matters not affected by the removal notice, including a January 13, 2026 Supplemental Gag Order and other pending motions.
Selected Federal Docket Entries
| ECF No. | Date | Filing | Party |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2026-01-29 | Supplemental Notice of Removal (Removing Entire Case to Federal Court) | Mace (pro se) |
| 3 | 2026-02-03 | Amended Notice of Removal (Exhibit A = state-court record) | Mace (pro se) |
| 4 | 2026-02-04 | Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry | Court |
| 5 | 2026-02-04 | Notice of change of case number to 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC | Court |
| 7 | 2026-02-13 | Motion to Remand to State Court | Bryant |
| 19 | 2026-03-23 | Response in Opposition to Motion to Remand | Mace (pro se) |
| 20 | 2026-03-30 | Reply in Support of Motion to Remand | Bryant |
| 22 | 2026-06-17 | Report and Recommendation (recommends remand) | Magistrate Judge Cherry |
| 26 | 2026-06-30 | Objections to the Report and Recommendation | Mace |
| 27 | 2026-07-01 | Motion for Oral Argument | Mace |
| 35 | 2026-08-31 | Response to Objections (after substitution of counsel) | Bryant |
| 36 | 2026-09-04 | Order granting remand, overruling objections, denying oral argument, remanding to state court | District Judge Hendricks |
Status: Remanded. On September 4, 2026, District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks granted Bryant's Motion to Remand and returned the case to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. Earlier, on June 17, 2026, Magistrate Judge Cherry had recommended remand (ECF 22); Mace objected (ECF 26) and moved for oral argument (ECF 27), and Bryant responded (ECF 35) after a substitution of counsel. Judge Hendricks affirmed the recommendation with modifications, overruled the objections, denied oral argument, and remanded (ECF 36). See the section below.
The Report and Recommendation (June 17, 2026)
On June 17, 2026, Magistrate Judge Cherry issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Bryant's Motion to Remand be granted and the case remanded to state court. The recommendation is procedural and does not reach the merits of the allegations. The magistrate found that Mace was on notice the case was removable by December 12, 2025, the date she asserted federal defenses (FTCA, Westfall Act, and the Speech or Debate Clause) in her Answer, so the 30-day removal clock expired before her January 29, 2026 removal, making the removal of the entire case untimely. The full thirteen-page Report and Recommendation is available here.
Conclusion, signed Molly H. Cherry, United States Magistrate Judge, June 17, 2026: "it is RECOMMENDED that Bryant's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to state court."
See the dispatch: A federal magistrate recommends sending the case Mace removed to federal court back to state court.
The Order Granting Remand (September 4, 2026)
On September 4, 2026, District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks entered an Order (ECF No. 36) affirming the Report and Recommendation with modifications, overruling Mace's objections, denying her motion for oral argument, and granting Bryant's Motion to Remand. The case was remanded to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the duplicate case number (2:26-cv-306) as moot. The order is procedural and does not reach the merits of Mace's asserted immunity defenses. The full eleven-page order is available here.
The Court held that Mace's removal was "untimely by several measures," and modified the magistrate's reasoning by finding that Bryant's November 17, 2025 motion for a temporary restraining order, which sought to restrain Mace's use of her Congressional social media, press appearances, and interviews, was the first paper from which removability could be ascertained, setting a removal deadline of December 17, 2025. In the alternative, the Court held that the November 26, 2025 gag order independently made the case removable. On every measured date, Mace's January 29, 2026 removal was too late. Because § 1442 removals fall within the exception in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), the remand order may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Conclusion of the order, signed Bruce H. Hendricks, United States District Judge, September 4, 2026: the Court "overrules Mace's objections ... and grants Bryant's motion to remand ... and remands this matter to the Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit."
See the dispatch: A federal judge sent the case Mace removed pro se back to state court, ruling her removal untimely "by several measures".
Sources & Related Coverage
The filings themselves:
- Representative Nancy Ruth Mace's Notice of Removal (PDF, 6 pages, notice body; exhibits omitted), filed pro se January 29, 2026, removing the Order to Show Cause and Motion for Civil Contempt from Berg v. Bryant, No. 2025-CP-10-03124, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, where the action was docketed as No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC.
- Report and Recommendation (PDF, 13 pages), entered June 17, 2026 by Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, recommending that Bryant's Motion to Remand be granted and the case remanded to state court (ECF No. 22).
- Order granting remand (PDF, 11 pages), signed September 4, 2026 by District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks (ECF No. 36), affirming the Report and Recommendation with modifications, overruling Mace's objections, denying oral argument, and remanding the case to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas.
The federal docket, Case No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC, is public on CourtListener and PACER (pacer.uscourts.gov). The underlying state action, No. 2025-CP-10-03124, is searchable on the South Carolina Judicial Branch Public Index at publicindex.sccourts.org. All filings cited are public court records.
See also: Berg v. Bryant (2025-CP-10-03124)
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.
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.
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.
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.