Part of: Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.) · Berg v. Bryant (and Bryant's Third-Party Complaint against Mace) · Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Musgrave v. Mace (2:25-cv-01823-RMG) · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
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.
On December 19, 2025, Rep. Nancy Mace's attorney filed her formal Answer to Patrick Bryant's Third-Party Complaint in Berg v. Bryant, the civil case pending in Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124. The document is a court filing, sworn responses, paragraph by paragraph, to Bryant's allegations. In it, Mace concedes certain facts and contests others. Both sets of statements are in her own words, on the public record. The filed Answer is reproduced below in key pages; the full 27-page original PDF is available here.
The Answer, as filed
Page 1 of 27, case caption: Alexis Berg v. Patrick Bryant et al., Charleston County Court of Common Pleas No. 2025-CP-10-03124; Third-Party Defendant Nancy Mace's Answer, electronically filed December 19, 2025 at 4:43 PM.
Page 5 of 27, Paragraphs 21-22: the air-tag admission and laptop admission, in Mace's own filed words.
Page 7 of 27, Paragraph 33: Mace's response to the Donehue allegation, admitting she told him Bryant filmed women without consent and denying the "get her houses" characterization.
Page 27 of 27, the closing attorney block, dated December 19, 2025, Florence, SC, with the electronic-filing stamp.
What the filing says
The single most concrete admission concerns a tracking device:
"Mace admits that she placed an air tag on Bryant's car for one day in August 2023."
The Answer goes on to address a second allegation, that Mace attempted to access Bryant's laptop, and admits it, but with an explicit reason attached:
"Mace admits that she attempted to access Bryant's laptop, but this occurred after she discovered videos and photographs on Bryant's phone depicting what appeared to be an unconscious woman being sexually assaulted after she discovered she and other women, including some of his female employees and wives of some of his male employees, and other women were filmed on a hidden camera without their knowledge, permission or consent."
That passage is Mace's own assertion about what she says she discovered, it is her stated justification, contained in her Answer, not a finding of any court.
Bryant's Third-Party Complaint further alleged that Mace told political consultant Wesley Donehue she planned to use information from Bryant's phone to obtain property. Mace's Answer responds directly to that:
"Mace admits that she told Donehue that Bryant had filmed women without their consent. Mace denies stating that she would use the information to 'get her houses.'"
The significance of the filing is structural: what Mace concedes (placing a tracking device on Bryant's vehicle; attempting to access his laptop) is her own sworn statement, not an allegation by an opposing party. What she denies, including the "get her houses" framing Bryant attributes to her, she contests in equal measure and under the same rules of court.
The Answer also asserts affirmative defenses, including that Bryant gave Mace permission to access his phone, that her statements about Bryant were true, and that certain of her alleged actions were within the scope of her duties as a Member of Congress under the Westfall Act.
The allegations in this litigation are unproven and contested. Bryant categorically denies Mace's claims and disputes her account of events. A SLED investigation remains open. No court has adjudicated the underlying merits. Mace's statements in her Answer are her own attributed assertions, not findings of fact. See People in the Public Record for background on the parties. For related actions see Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related proceedings.
Sources & related coverage:
- The filing itself: Third-Party Defendant Nancy Mace's Answer to Third-Party Complaint (PDF, 27 pages), Alexis Berg v. Patrick Bryant et al., Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, electronically filed December 19, 2025 (amended January 15, 2026).
- The state docket is verifiable on the SC Judicial Branch Public Index (Charleston County) under Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124.
- Case background: The Litigation
Read next
January 21, 2026 · DispatchIn 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.
December 1, 2025 · DispatchWhile 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.
November 26, 2025 · DispatchUnder 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.
June 16, 2026 · DispatchCourt 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.
January 27, 2026 · DispatchMace 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.
January 27, 2026 · Dispatch'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.