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
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.
Caitlin Byrd ·
Legal experts quoted in the piece anticipated First Amendment challenges; the order expired December 17 but was subject to extension.
Read next
January 22, 2026 · DispatchNancy 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.
January 13, 2026 · DispatchGag 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.
December 9, 2025 · DispatchGagged: 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.
May 23, 2025 · DispatchUnder 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.
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.