Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is being sued by one of the men she publicly named in a speech on the House floor in February, accusing him of sexual abuse.
In that speech, she accused her ex-fiancé, Patrick Bryant, and three others of sex crimes including rape, sex trafficking, and the nonconsensual filming of sex acts with her and others. It is a case that could come down to what sort of conduct a sitting member of Congress is constitutionally protected from, in their position as a lawmaker.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Brian Musgrave, has completely denied all the allegations made against him by Mace. He has also stated that he was not present during any of the alleged events in question that Mace described. He goes on to say that he did not “film” or “incapacitate” anyone, and added that Mace “and her team destroyed the lives” of himself and his family. The suit does not specifically request any award for compensatory or punitive damages, which would be decided by a jury, but “sufficient to impress upon the Defendant the seriousness of her conduct and to deter such similar conduct in the future.”
READ MORE: Thoughts on Nancy Mace Speech: Protect, Support, Provide—How a Real Man Treats Women
While the suit focuses on Mace’s behavior both on and off the House floor, a draft of Mace’s speech also made the rounds of social media. But its main focus is whether the speech is protected by the debate clause in the Constitution, which gives legal protection for members of Congress in the capacity of their official acts as lawmakers. The clause includes “any speech or debate in either House.” The lawsuit contends that the Constitutional 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.”
In the speech that Mace herself described as “scorched earth,” she not only accused Bryant, Musgrave, and the others of sexual abuse, she also stated that she was speaking out about the alleged events because South Carolina Attorney General Allan Wilson had declined to act on evidence that she provided in any of the cases. Wilson also denied any accusations of improper conduct, and said that Mace’s accusations were “categorically false.” He added that he had “no knowledge” of the alleged assaults until Mace’s House floor speech.
However, after Mace’s speech, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division did confirm that there was an active investigation into Mace’s allegations against Bryant. Bryant has also denied all of Mace’s allegations against him, and released a statement after her speech that read in part, “I categorically deny these allegations. I take this matter seriously and will cooperate fully with any necessary legal processes to clear my name.”
Mace has become one of the most vocal advocates for keeping biological men out of women’s sports, and protecting women’s private spaces such as restrooms and locker rooms. She has recently introduced the Protecting Women’s Private Spaces Act, the Stop the Invasion of Women’s Spaces Act, and the Prison Rape Prevention Act, which bars transgender women from accessing women’s restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and prisons.
There could be a bit of politics being played as well. Both Mace and Wilson, along with South Carolina Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, are potential 2026 gubernatorial candidates.
As this is a developing story, RedState will provide updates as they become available.
