One Congress Member has made a massive mistake. They’re wishing they could take it all back.
Because a U.S. House Rep. was slapped with a huge lawsuit that threatens their career.
Defamation Lawsuit Targets Rep. Nancy Mace Over House Floor Accusations
Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina, finds herself at the center of a defamation lawsuit brought by one of four men she accused of s*xual misconduct during a speech on the House floor last month. The case, filed in federal court in South Carolina, could put to the test the legal safeguards that shield lawmakers for their official actions, potentially reshaping how far congressional immunity extends.
In her February address, Mace named her former fiancé, Charleston businessman Patrick Bryant, along with three other men, alleging they committed acts of rape, s*x trafficking, and nonconsensual filming of s*xual encounters involving her and others. The speech stunned observers and thrust her personal allegations into the national spotlight. Now, Brian Musgrave, one of the individuals she identified, has fired back with a legal challenge, claiming Mace’s accusations were baseless and devastating.
Musgrave’s lawsuit pulls no punches. He denies the charges outright, asserting he was not present at any of the events Mace described and never engaged in filming or incapacitating anyone. “She and her team destroyed the lives of Musgrave and his family,” the complaint states, painting a picture of irreparable harm caused by the congresswoman’s words. The suit demands compensatory and punitive damages, leaving the amount up to a jury to decide, with the goal of sending a clear message about the gravity of her actions and preventing similar conduct moving forward.
Mace’s office has yet to respond to inquiries about the lawsuit. Nancy Mace did, however, allege that she had proof of these bombshell claims against the three men when she made the allegations on the U.S. House floor.
At the heart of the case is a constitutional question: does the speech or debate clause, which protects lawmakers from liability for statements made in their official capacity, apply here? The clause, enshrined in the Constitution, ensures that “any Speech or Debate in either House” cannot be questioned in court. Musgrave’s legal team argues it’s not an absolute shield.
“The clause does not transform the floor of Congress into a sanctuary for defamation, nor does it protect Congresswoman Mace’s extra-Congressional defamatory statements surrounding her speech,” the suit contends. To bolster this claim, the complaint points to Mace’s actions beyond the House floor, including a draft of the speech that reportedly circulated beforehand and posts she made on social media amplifying her accusations.
The controversy traces back to Mace’s February speech, where she explained her decision to go public. She alleged that South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson had failed to pursue evidence of abuse she claimed to have submitted to his office. Wilson, however, pushed back hard, calling her accusations against his office “categorically false” and stating that his team had “no knowledge” of her alleged assault until she took to the House floor. The public sparring between Mace and Wilson adds a political layer to the saga, as both are eyeing runs for South Carolina governor in 2026.
Meanwhile, fallout from Mace’s speech continues to ripple. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division has confirmed it is investigating Patrick Bryant, who, like Musgrave, has firmly denied the allegations leveled against him. Bryant’s case remains under scrutiny, but no charges have been announced as of yet.
The defamation suit against Mace raises thorny issues about accountability, free speech, and the limits of congressional privilege. If Musgrave succeeds in piercing the speech or debate clause’s protections, it could set a precedent affecting how lawmakers approach public statements—both inside and outside the Capitol. For now, the courts will determine whether Mace’s words crossed a line, and what price, if any, she’ll pay for them.
After Nancy Mace made the comments in her U.S. House floor speech, legal experts were quick to point out that it would be hard for her to face any consequences for her claims because of the protections legislators have for speech given on the floor of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate chambers.
Previous rulings on cases involving the Speech or Debate clause have tended to be ruled in favor of the legislators and officials making the speech rather than those accusing the legislators of defamation or criminal intent. The 1972 Supreme Court ruling on the clause made it clear what is and is not legislative activity to be protected by the clause. Providing comments like the ones Nancy Mace made on the U.S. House floor are likely to be protected based on historical precedent form the courts.
The Federalist Wire will update you on any new developments in this case.
