Sanctions Showdown: New Filing Accuses Nancy Mace’s Lawyers of Fabricating Legal Citations

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by JENN WOOD

***

Just days after attorneys for entrepreneur Patrick Bryant and businessman Eric Bowman asked a South Carolina judge to hold congresswoman Nancy Mace in civil contempt for allegedly violating a sweeping gag order, the legal fight surrounding the congresswoman and gubernatorial candidate took another bizarre turn.

In a new motion filed last Thursday (January 15, 2026), Bryant asked retired S.C. circuit court judge Donald B. Hocker to impose sanctions against Mace and her attorney – accusing them of submitting fabricated legal citations, nonexistent cases, and false quotations. Bryant’s filing (.pdf) also accused Mace’s counsel of attempting to quietly conceal these alleged errors once they were discovered.

If sustained, the allegations would move the case beyond disputes over speech and evidence – and into the integrity of court filings submitted by a sitting member of Congress in a high-stakes civil proceeding.

***

‘FAKE CASES’ AND A LAST-MINUTE FILING

Bryant’s latest filing focused on a 24-page memorandum (.pdf) submitted by Mace’s counsel on December 29, 2025. This pleading opposed Bryant’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and in-camera review — and was filed one day before a major in-person hearing at which judge Hocker was set to consider more than a dozen motions.

Bryant alleged that the memorandum cited multiple cases that do not exist, misquoted real opinions, and attributed legal principles to courts that never articulated them — errors consistent with AI-generated legal research rather than traditional attorney work.

Rather than alerting the court to the problems, however, the motion claimed Mace’s counsel circulated an “amended” memorandum (.pdf) the following day – telling the judge it merely contained “updated citations,” without disclosing that the original citations had been fabricated. Bryant contended the amended filing continued to include false quotations and misapplied precedent – in some instances replacing one nonexistent case with another.

The motion walks through page-by-page comparisons, alleging that even where real cases were later substituted, the quotations attributed to them still do not appear in the opinions cited.

***

***

Rule 11 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires attorneys to certify that pleadings are grounded in existing law, supported by a good-faith argument for change, and not presented for an improper purpose.

Bryant argues that standard was violated repeatedly — and deliberately.

According to the motion, the timing of the filing was strategic: Mace and her counsel allegedly sought an expedited ruling on the temporary restraining order before the false citations could be uncovered, placing the court in the position of relying on fabricated authority in a high-profile constitutional dispute.

Bryant’s motion asked Judge Hocker to issue an order to show cause, impose monetary sanctions, award attorney’s fees – and require Mace and her attorney to produce the original documents used to draft both memoranda so the court could determine how the citations were generated.

No ruling in the matter has been issued.

***

RELATED | GAG ORDER SHOWDOWN

***

AN ESCALATION ON TOP OF AN ESCALATION

The sanctions motion lands amid an already volatile procedural posture.

Earlier this week, Bryant and Bowman asked judge Hocker to hold Mace in civil contempt, accusing her of repeatedly violating a court-ordered gag order by continuing to post about the case, distribute campaign communications accusing Bryant of rape and child sexual exploitation, and publicly comment on Bowman’s criminal matters.

That gag order — imposed in late November and later extended — was intended to halt what the court described as an escalating public battle that threatened the fairness of the proceedings. The contempt motion argues Mace ignored the order within hours of its issuance and continued doing so after being warned by the court.

Mace, for her part, has responded with a flurry of filings seeking to vacate or narrow the gag order (.pdf), arguing it constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint and improperly interferes with her legislative duties and communications with constituents.

“I yield to no man who seeks to silence the truth,” Mace wrote in one X post late Sunday (January 18, 2026).

“The First Amendment does not permit courts to silence victims to protect predators from embarrassment,” she wrote in another post on X early Monday morning (January 19, 2026).

***

THE BROADER CONTEXT

The underlying litigation stems from a sexual assault lawsuit filed against Bryant, Bowman and others in May 2025 by Alexis “Ali” Berg (initially under the pseudonym “Jane Doe”). Berg’s claims closely mirrored those made in Mace’s widely watched “scorched earth” speech – delivered on the floor of the U.S. House last February.

In that speech, the congresswoman said she had “accidentally” discovered video evidence of a rape on Bryant’s phone.

As FITSNews previously reported, Berg has since testified she has never seen the alleged video, does not possess it, and learned of the assault secondhand. That gap has fueled Bryant’s push for an in-camera review of any materials Mace claims to have — a request the court has repeatedly flagged as central to resolving credibility disputes between the two parties.

***

RELATED | NANCY MACE’S ‘SCORCHED EARTH’ SPEECH

***

POLITICS, PROCEDURE — AND WHAT COMES NEXT

The latest filing also lands at a precarious moment for Mace politically.

Once viewed as the GOP’s presumptive frontrunner in South Carolina’s 2026 gubernatorial race, Mace now trails her rivals in cash on hand – and polling momentum. A campaign that once thrived on aggressive earned media has struggled under the weight of personal controversy, courtroom setbacks and judicial intervention.

Judge Hocker’s gag order initially appeared to offer a reset — forcing Mace to pivot back toward policy and away from personal invective. The sanctions motion threatens to reopen that wound, placing Mace at the center of yet another legal controversy she is largely prohibited from publicly addressing.

Hocker has not ruled on the sanctions motion, the contempt request, or Mace’s competing efforts to dismantle the gag order. If the court grants the motion, the consequences could extend beyond this case — raising questions about attorney conduct, credibility, and the use of emerging technologies in high-stakes litigation.

For now, the message from the docket is unmistakable: what began as a fight over speech has evolved into a test of procedural integrity — and the stakes, both legal and political, continue to rise.

***

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.