A federal judge just dropped the gavel on a defamation lawsuit against South Carolina’s own Rep. Nancy Mace, shielding her bold House floor accusations under the Constitution’s ironclad protections.
Just The News reported that in a decisive ruling on Wednesday, the court tossed out the case brought by Brian Musgrave, affirming that Mace’s controversial speech earlier this year about alleged sexual misconduct falls under protected congressional discourse.
Let’s rewind to November 2023, when Mace claims she stumbled upon a staggering 10,000 videos and photos on her ex-fiancé Patrick Bryant’s phone, purportedly showing evidence of abuse.
Fast forward to early 2025, and Mace took to the House floor with a bombshell, accusing four men of orchestrating sexual abuse and recording explicit acts without consent.
By February 2025, she doubled down, naming the men and alleging physical harm alongside non-consensual recordings involving herself and others. She didn’t wave the evidence around in Congress, mind you, but insists she handed it over to South Carolina law enforcement for investigation.
Enter Brian Musgrave, one of the accused, who fired back with a lawsuit in March 2025, challenging Mace’s claims and arguing her speech shouldn’t be shielded by congressional immunity.
Musgrave denies every allegation, stating he wasn’t even present for the events Mace described, but his legal bid hit a brick wall.
U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled that the Constitution’s speech and debate clause covers Mace’s remarks, dismissing the case without weighing in on whether her words were defamatory.
Judge Gergel put it plainly: “Congress has weighed the risks and benefits … and concluded that libel and related claims against federal officials acting within the scope of their employment are barred under federal law.”
Translation? The court isn’t here to play feelings police—it’s sticking to the rulebook, even if Musgrave feels wronged.
Mace, unsurprisingly, took a victory lap on X, calling the suit “baseless” and applauding the judge for defending constitutional principles against what she sees as petty attacks.
She didn’t hold back, declaring, “They came after me because I stood up for victims and demanded crime be prosecuted.”
Mace added, “Today’s court decision proves their lies and attacks won’t break me. I’ve put my career on the line to fight crime and drafted legislation to strengthen our laws.”
Give her credit for grit—she’s framing this as a battle for justice, not a personal vendetta, though skeptics might wonder about the lack of public proof behind her claims.
Here’s the rub: Mace’s accusations are explosive, yet the courtroom isn’t the place to test their truth under current law.
While conservatives might cheer her for taking a stand against what she calls rampant crime, it’s fair to ask if such serious claims deserve more scrutiny outside the shield of congressional privilege.
Still, the ruling stands as a win for free speech in Congress, even if it leaves Musgrave without a legal remedy and the public without clarity on the allegations.