|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
A federal judge has thrown out a high-profile defamation lawsuit filed by Fort Mill, South Carolina businessman Brian Musgrave against U.S. congresswoman Nancy Mace — concluding her accusatory remarks against him on the House floor (and subsequent public statements) fell within the scope of her duties as a member of Congress and are therefore protected under federal law.
U.S. district court judge Richard Gergel’s order, issued Wednesday in Charleston, S.C. dismissed Musgrave’s claims in their entirety, substituting the United States as the defendant under the Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from personal liability when acting within the scope of their employment.
The decision effectively grants Mace immunity from civil liability, leaving Musgrave without a legal remedy despite his insistence that the allegations devastated his reputation and family.
***
THE SPEECH THAT SPARKED THE LAWSUIT
At the center of the case was a fiery February 10, 2025 speech in which Mace took to the U.S. House floor declaring she was going “scorched earth.” She accused Musgrave and three other men of being “predators” who incapacitated women and filmed sexual assaults at an Isle of Palms condominium — even displaying their pictures on a poster titled ‘PREDATORS‘.
Musgrave, a longtime friend and business partner of Mace’s former fiancé, Patrick Bryant, flatly denied any involvement – insisting he was “collateral damage” in a dispute between the congresswoman and her ex. His complaint argued Mace not only defamed him on the House floor but also repeated and amplified the allegations through social media, interviews, and even by hanging the “Predators” poster outside her congressional office.
Mace countered that her remarks were tied directly to pending legislation she had drafted to combat sexual violence and protect victims — including proposals addressing voyeurism, deportation of sex offenders, and revenge porn.
Judge Gergel agreed, concluding that her statements — even if personally motivated — were at least partly connected to her official duties and thus shielded from civil liability.
***
RELATED | NANCY MACE’S ‘SCORCHED EARTH’ SPEECH
***
NO DISCOVERY, NO DAY IN COURT
Musgrave’s attorneys sought discovery to probe Mace’s motives and evidence, including deposing her about alleged witness recruitment and financial disputes with her ex-fiancé. The judge denied the request, ruling Musgrave failed to meet the burden of showing Mace acted outside her congressional role.
The order stressed that while the accusations may have caused Musgrave “great mental anguish” and reputational harm, Congress has expressly barred libel and slander claims against federal officials under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
As the court put it: “An injured party with an otherwise meritorious tort claim is denied compensation simply because he had the misfortune to be injured by a federal official.”
Mace immediately took a victory lap online, tweeting, “Judge Gergel dismissed Brian Musgrave’s baseless defamation suit against me! The court proved the US Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND. … Today’s court decision proves their lies and attacks won’t break me.”
***
?Judge Gergel dismissed Brian Musgrave’s baseless defamation suit against me!?
— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) August 20, 2025
The court proved the US Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND.
They came after me because I stood up for victims and demanded crime be prosecuted. Today’s court decision proves their lies and…
***
Musgrave’s attorney, Eric Bland, struck a very different tone — calling the ruling “a scary day for ordinary citizens.”
Bland argued the decision has left private citizens defenseless if maligned by members of Congress on social media or in interviews tied loosely to legislative work. “It seems patently unfair that a United States citizen… can be grouped and called a rapist and a predator without any proof, and it can be done over and over again with immunity (and impunity),” he said.
***
For me, the Country became much scarier today for ordinary US citizens. On behalf of our client, Brian Musgrave, we sued representative Nancy Mace for calling him a predator, a rapist and sexual trafficker on the United States House of Representatives Floor on February 10, 2025,…
— Eric Bland (@TheEricBland) August 20, 2025
***
WHY IT MATTERS
The ruling underscores the expansive protections lawmakers enjoy under both the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause and the Westfall Act — protections that extend well beyond the chamber floor to press interviews, social media posts, and even signage displayed outside congressional offices.
For Mace, it’s a major legal victory that reinforces her aggressive push to frame herself as a crusader for victims of sexual violence. For Musgrave — who insists he has never committed any of the acts alleged — it represents a devastating defeat, one that leaves his reputation tarnished with no legal avenue for redress.
The clash also highlights a broader tension: in the digital age, where a single congressional statement can instantly reach millions online, courts remain bound to doctrines written for a slower era of printed press and limited circulation. As Bland warned, “A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can lace up in shoes.”
***
THE ORDER…
(U.S. District Court)
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
15 comments
If memory serves me, ghe French, in a bygone era, found a solution for this kind of crap.
If memory serves me, the French, in a bygone era, found a solution for this kind of crap.
Jenn, you posted the complaint, not the order.
(Posting this comment at 7:15 pm on 8/20/25 for those who will come after me after she changes it.)
Please welcome, Governor Nancy Mace.
Will Nancy Mace be the first transgender governor?
She is unfit for this position.
That’s BS. She was not conducting congressional business that evening. It was nearly an empty chamber. She should be held accountable. God help us if she becomes Governor
She’s not immune from criminal prosecution. If Bland was a decent lawyer he would know that South Carolina has a statute criminalizing slander and libel. I’m sure the Charleston PD would be happy to investigate. Then again Bland is just an average lawyer
She’s not immune to criminal prosecution, generally speaking, true. But slander and libel are not statutory crimes in South Carolina, nor in Washington DC (dear God – could you imagine??? there would only be about 50 people left in Congress if so).
SC Code § 16-7-150 carries a 2 year prison sentence The statute is still on the books, and any complaints have to be accepted, arrest made for violations etc But SC is still a f-d up state. Prosecutors are crooked they cover things up too.
Direct evidence can be splattered all over the wall. but many that should be prosecuted never are. It’s like a matter that involved a long term employee in a public defender’s office in SC. The employee did wrong. But kept her job while it all was swept under the rug.
Thank you for correcting Congaree, it is absolutely a statutory criminal offense and has been used and successfully prosecuted numerous times in SC.
I stand corrected – thanks for pointing that out. But now I want to know when has anyone who was a public official actually been successfully convicted of this misdemeanor…..
Perhaps I spoke too soon…. appears that Section 16-7-150 was held to be unconstitutional in 1991 in Fitts v. Kolb. So while on the books, its effectively toothless.
Does the ACT this judge says allows Mace to spew venom in contrast with the EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW ACT?
WHY is an elected politician immune while others are not? According to the Equal Rights Act, they are not. So Congress again has f*cked shit up.
So many Republicans relying on gubmint to protect them from things we ordinary citizens aren’t shielded from.