Gag Order Showdown: New Motion Targets Nancy Mace

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by JENN WOOD

***

As South Carolina’s 2026 gubernatorial race enters its most consequential phase, one of its highest-profile contenders now finds herself facing renewed legal jeopardy — not from political rivals, but from a judge overseeing a fast-expanding civil docket tied to her personal and political unraveling.

Attorneys for Patrick Bryant and Eric Bowman filed a sweeping motion this week asking retired S.C. circuit court judge Donald B. Hocker to hold South Carolina congresswoman/gubernatorial candidate Nancy Mace in civil contempt, accusing the first-district congresswoman of repeatedly and willfully violating a court-ordered gag order governing a cluster of sexual-assault-related lawsuits now consolidated before him.

The filing (.pdf), submitted January 12, 2026, seeks an order to show cause, monetary sanctions, mandatory takedowns of social-media posts, a court-approved corrective statement — and, if violations continue, the possibility of incarceration until compliance is achieved.

It is the most aggressive escalation yet in a legal war that has increasingly blurred the lines between courtroom strategy, political messaging, and what judge Hocker has repeatedly described as a need to preserve “a fair, just, and reasonable resolution” for all parties.

***

FROM ‘SCORCHED EARTH’ TO COURT SANCTIONS

The contempt motion traces Mace’s conduct back to February 2025, when she launched what allies framed as a moral crusade — and critics characterized as a “scorched earth” campaign — accusing her then-fiancé Bryant and his business associates of sexual assault, voyeurism and broader criminal behavior.

Those allegations later formed the backbone of a civil lawsuit filed by Alexis “Ali” Berg, initially under the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” against Bryant, Bowman, John Osborne and multiple business entities. As FITSNews has previously reported, Berg’s claims closely mirrored Mace’s dramatic floor speech introducing the federal Stop VOYEURS Act, during which the congresswoman said she had “accidentally” discovered video evidence of a rape on Bryant’s phone.

But as the litigation progressed, key evidentiary questions remained unresolved — including whether such a video has ever been seen by the plaintiff, her attorneys, or the court.

That uncertainty, combined with escalating public commentary, prompted Judge Hocker in late November to issue a broad gag order (.pdf) prohibiting all parties — including Mace — from making any public statements, social-media posts, or communications about the case, the parties, their attorneys, or related materials.

The order was later extended indefinitely, pending rulings on motions for injunctive relief.

***

RELATED | GAGGED: JUDGE ISSUES ORDER IN NANCY MACE CASE

***

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS — AND A RAPID ESCALATION

According to the contempt motion, Mace violated the gag order within hours of its issuance — and then continued doing so repeatedly.

The filing catalogs a series of posts, videos, emails and a mass congressional newsletter in which Mace allegedly:

• Commented publicly on Bowman’s bond status and labeled unnamed individuals as “victims”
• Called for the impeachment of “corrupt judges,” including those “specifically” in South Carolina
• Posted and republished videos naming Bowman and linking him to domestic violence and “pedophiles”
• Distributed an official congressional newsletter accusing Bryant of rape, child sexual exploitation and harassment of victims
• Solicited additional complainants and witnesses through her federal office

The motion argues these communications were not legislative acts, were not insulated by the First Amendment, and were explicitly barred by the gag order’s plain language — regardless of whether they originated from Mace’s personal or official accounts.

More pointedly, Bryant and Bowman’s attorneys argue the conduct was knowing and deliberate, noting that Mace was represented by counsel, received notice of the order, and was personally present when the court warned that contempt proceedings would follow continued violations.

***

***

THE EVIDENCE GAP — AND THE IN-CAMERA FIGHT

Layered beneath the contempt dispute is a deeper evidentiary battle that has shaped nearly every motion in the case.

Court filings and discovery correspondence reflect that Berg has testified she has never seen the alleged assault video, does not possess it, and has never spoken directly with one of her key purported witnesses. Her counsel has acknowledged that references to video evidence are based on still images and secondhand descriptions — not firsthand review.

That disconnect has fueled Bryant’s push for an in-camera review of any materials Mace claims to possess — a request the court has repeatedly flagged as central to resolving the case’s credibility disputes.

Defense attorneys argue that public accusations continue to outpace the evidentiary record, and that Mace’s online conduct risks permanently tainting jurors in a case where no criminal charges have been filed — despite a multi-year investigation.

***

RELATED | CROSSROADS 2026: CAN NANCY MACE ‘READ THE ROOM?’

***

POLITICS COLLIDE WITH PROCEDURE — AND WHAT COMES NEXT

The timing of the contempt motion is not lost on observers of South Carolina’s 2026 gubernatorial race. Once viewed as the GOP’s presumptive frontrunner, Mace now trails her rivals in cash on hand, polling momentum, and message discipline. A campaign that once thrived on aggressive earned media has struggled under the cumulative weight of personal controversy, courtroom setbacks, and judicial constraints.

Against that backdrop, judge Donald Hocker’s gag order initially appeared to offer a measure of political relief — forcing a pivot away from personal invective and back toward policy-based campaigning. The new contempt filing threatens to reopen that wound, placing Mace once again at the center of a legal narrative she is expressly prohibited from publicly addressing.

Judge Hocker has not yet ruled on the motion. If granted, Mace would be required to appear and explain why she should not be sanctioned for civil contempt — a proceeding that could carry escalating consequences if the court finds continued noncompliance.

For now, the message from the bench appears unmistakable: the era of litigating this dispute through social media, campaign communications, and public spectacle may be drawing to a close — one way or another.

***

THE MOTION…

***

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.