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) · Nancy Mace's Gag Order Violations · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
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.
On January 21, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace, appearing pro se, without counsel, wrote a letter directly to Judge Donald B. Hocker of the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, the judge presiding over Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, in which Mace is a third-party defendant and subject to a gag order. She filed the letter on that docket under a pro se notice, and the Clerk of Court stamped it FILED on January 22, 2026. Copies were later attached as exhibits to her Notice of Removal filings in federal court. In the letter she announced she had moved the contempt proceeding against her to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and would seek to remove the entire action.
The complete five-page filing, the notice cover page bearing the Clerk's stamp, followed by Mace's four-page signed letter, is reproduced below, and the original PDF is available here.
The letter, as filed
Page 1, the pro se notice of filing, case caption 2025-CP-10-03124, stamped FILED Jan. 22, 2026, signed by Mace.
Page 2, the letter opens on "THE HONORABLE NANCY R. MACE / MEMBER OF CONGRESS" letterhead: notice of removal, discharge of her counsel, and the argument that the gag order is "overly broad, unconstitutional, and unenforceable."
Page 3, the strict-scrutiny argument; "Mr. Bowman and Mr. Bryant have sought to use this Court to accomplish what they could not accomplish through intimidation and harassment: my silence."
Page 4, the "Kangaroo Court" accusation, "I will not be SILENCED," and the "cold dark cell" passage.
Page 5, the closing line, "I yield to no man who seeks to silence the truth," over Mace's signature.
What the letter says
Her opening move was to attack the gag order as unconstitutional:
"the Gag Order is overly broad, unconstitutional, and unenforceable, particularly as applied to a sitting member of the U.S. Congress and leading candidate for Governor of South Carolina."
Mace then catalogued what she characterized as contradictory statements by Bryant's attorneys about possession of a phone, statements she described as "fictitious and false … stated under oath … to manipulate this Court and the press." She argued that, because of the gag order, she had no recourse when those alleged falsehoods produced what she called defamatory headlines about her. She closed that section of the letter with a direct accusation at opposing counsel and a declaration to the judge:
"Furthermore, opposing counsel has turned your Honorable Court into a Kangaroo Court, which does an enormous disservice to the great state of South Carolina."
"I respectfully inform this Honorable Court: I will not be SILENCED."
The letter's final paragraphs escalated further. Invoking her floor speech "almost one year ago", during which she says she held up handcuffs and said, "If anyone would like to arrest me for standing up for women, here are my wrists", Mace made clear she was prepared to go to jail rather than comply with an order she considered unlawful:
"That offer stands today. I would rather sit in a cold dark cell than abandon South Carolina's daughters who are counting on me to fight for them."
And her sign-off, bolded in the original:
"The gag order as it stands is unconstitutional and unenforceable and therefore, Your Honor, I yield to no man who seeks to silence the truth."
What makes this document unusual, and significant as a matter of public record, is not merely its tone. A sitting member of Congress, writing without an attorney, accused a state court judge's courtroom of being a "Kangaroo Court," declared the judge's own gag order unconstitutional, and simultaneously yanked the contempt proceeding out of his jurisdiction and into federal court, all in a single letter addressed to that judge personally. The letter is a public court filing and is part of the official case record, reproduced above in full.
The underlying dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation in Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related actions, the federal removal proceedings (D.S.C. Nos. 2:26-cv-00305, 2:26-cv-00306), and a separate South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation; all allegations remain unproven and contested. Mace denies Bryant's claims; Bryant and the other named parties deny Mace's allegations; no underlying matter has been adjudicated. Nothing here is a finding of fact. For background on the parties see People in the Public Record.
Sources & related coverage:
- The filing itself: Letter to Judge Hocker re Gag Order and Notice of Removal (PDF, 5 pages), Mace's pro se notice + letter, Berg v. Bryant, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas No. 2025-CP-10-03124, letter dated January 21, 2026, stamped FILED January 22, 2026.
- Copies of the letter were attached as exhibits to Mace's federal removal filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, see No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC (Entry 3-12, filed Feb. 3, 2026) and No. 2:26-cv-00306-BHH-MHC (Entry 1-6, filed Jan. 29, 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
September 4, 2026 · DispatchNancy 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.
July 20, 2026 · Dispatch"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.
June 17, 2026 · DispatchA 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.
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.
June 9, 2026 · DispatchUnder 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.
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.