A high-profile defamation claim against U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace could pose serious legal and political challenges as the three-term Lowcountry Republican gears up for an expected 2026 gubernatorial run, Palmetto State legal and political experts tell the Charleston City Paper.
The lawsuit was filed March 14 by Fort Mill businessman Brian Musgrave, one of four men Mace named as sexual “predators” in a Feb. 10 speech on the House floor. In the speech, Mace said that she had provided evidence of the men’s involvement in multiple sexual assaults, including her own, to law enforcement. The S.C. Law Enforcement Division later confirmed that one of the men — Mace’s ex-fiance, Patrick Bryant of Charleston County — was under investigation.
All four men have publicly proclaimed their innocence.
According to a March 14 statement from Musgrave’s attorneys, they filed the suit several days after requesting that Mace provide either a retraction or evidence supporting her allegations. When neither was forthcoming, they said, Musgrave moved forward with the complaint.
“Through the lawsuit, Musgrave seeks to restore his good name and reputation as he enjoyed the same prior to Nancy Mace’s false accusations,” the attorneys said. “As one can imagine, these accusations have not only destroyed Brian Musgrave, but have also inflicted great pain on his wife and children.”
The legal and political landscape
According to legal scholars, the U.S. Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause is clear: Members of Congress enjoy complete immunity for statements made in the course of their official business.
As a result, Musgrave’s claim is less focused on Mace’s Feb. 10 speech — and concentrates more on her repetition of those claims in news stories and social media.
That’s where S.C. legal and political observers say Mace could run into problems. And to understand why, they say it helps to know a few facts about U.S. defamation law and the name William Proxmire.
S.C. constitutional law attorney Jay Bender says a private citizen like Musgrave has a relatively low defamation bar, needing only to show that Mace made the allegations publicly and that they harmed his reputation.
“So, to avoid liability Mace will have to prove truth,” Bender said. “And that could make it a challenging case from her perspective, assuming she does not have [constitutional] immunity.”
With regard to immunity, Bender said the primary legal challenge for Mace involves a landmark case related to the late Democratic U.S. Sen. William Proxmire of Wisconsin, who was famous in the 1970s and ‘80s for handing out “Golden Fleece Awards” to government agencies he accused of wasting taxpayer dollars.
In 1975, scientist Ronald Hutchinson, an unwilling recipient of the award, sued the senator for defamation, taking the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in a major 1979 ruling,justices found that the Speech and Debate Clause did not protect members when they republish floor statements in press releases, newsletters and the like—leaving them open to defamation claims.
“Ultimately, the case was settled, with Proxmire paying money to Hutchinson,” Bender noted.
And regardless of where the ultimate truth in the Mace case lies, that’s the kind of outcome that political strategists in both parties say could damage Mace’s credibility as a gubernatorial candidate heading into 2026.
“If she’s got anything, she needs to bring it forward,” one GOP insider told the City Paper. “Though in this political environment, it’s hard to say what does and doesn’t hurt a political figure’s credibility.”
Democrats also talked about the potential political risks to Mace, even as they anticipated future headlines.
“Discovery and depositions are going to be absolutely wild,” a veteran Democratic strategist said. “Who knows how many ridiculous and embarrassing fights she’ll pick in the process?”
Mace’s response
Mace’s office declined to comment on the suit, referring the City Paper to Mace’s official X (formerly Twitter) account, and to a March 6 letter from U.S. House General Counsel Matthew Berry.
On X, Mace’s response was somewhere between measured and cryptic.
“I don’t know who needs to hear this — actually, I do — but attacking witnesses and victims of sexual violence isn’t the flex you think it is,” Mace said in a video clip posted to X March 15.
By contrast, Berry’s letter, sent to Musgrave’s attorneys before the lawsuit was filed, left no doubt about Mace’s legal position.
“The Speech or Debate Clause absolutely immunizes members from civil actions because such litigation ‘creates a distraction and forces Members to divert their time, energy, and attention from their legislative tasks to defend the litigation,’” Berry wrote. “Should your client choose to file a lawsuit against Congresswoman Mace for her floor statements, government attorneys will vigorously defend her in court.”
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.