Judge Dismisses Defamation Case Filed Against Nancy Mace

A federal judge on Wednesday tossed a defamation lawsuit against Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) filed after she took to the House floor to accuse a man of being a predator. 

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled that even if the lawsuit could proceed, federal law entitles the Justice Department to step in and largely make Mace immune from damages. 

Gergel did not address whether Mace actually defamed the man, Brian Musgrave, and acknowledged the ruling means he may have no ability to recover damages even if the congresswoman falsely destroyed his reputation, as Musgrave claims. 

“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. It is this Court’s duty to uphold the rule of law,” the judge wrote. 

Gergel was nominated to the bench by former President Obama. 

Musgrave sued Mace in March after she gave a stunning speech on the House floor that included a series of allegations of sexual abuse and voyeurism. 

Mace, who is now running for governor of South Carolina, celebrated the ruling. 

“Today the court proved the US Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND,” Mace said in a statement. “They came after me because I stood up for victims and demanded crime be prosecuted. 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. And I’ll never stop fighting for law and order.” 

Musgrave was one of four men whom Mace singled out in a stunning speech on the House floor in February, in which she lobbed accusations of sexual abuse and voyeurism. In addition to Musgrave, Mace had accused her ex-fiancé and two other men of wrongdoing. 

Eric Bland, Musgrave’s attorney, said the decision allows politicians to “say and do anything they want” but vowed to “keep fighting” to clear his client’s name. 

“It seems patently unfair that a United States citizen who lives a law-abiding life can be grouped and called a rapist and a predator without any proof, and it can be done over and over again with immunity (and impunity),” Bland said in a statement. 

Mace in the speech claimed to have found a hidden camera on a property that Musgrave owns with Mace’s ex-fiancé that had intimate photos of women taken without their knowledge or consent. Musgrave’s suit said he didn’t place the camera and never had knowledge of it.

While he was not the subject of Mace’s more serious allegations in the speech, such as her belief she was raped after being “purposefully incapacitated,” Mace labeled Musgrave along with the three other men as a “predator.”

The lawsuit took aim at the speech, Mace’s social media posts and a poster displayed outside her congressional office titled “PREDATORS” with images of the four men. The case also included claims against some of Mace’s congressional staff. 

Last month, the Justice Department sought to step in and largely replace Mace and the staffers as the defendant by certifying they were acting in the scope of their jobs, making them immune and leaving taxpayers on the hook for damages. 

Gergel, the judge, agreed that the government could do so on all but one claim: that Mace owes Musgrave damages for violating his constitutional rights, known as a Bivens action.

But the judge went on to dismiss that claim, too, finding it isn’t permitted in defamation cases and that Mace was protected anyway by the U.S. Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. 

Mace has made her accusations against the men a central part of her political identity in recent months.

In a May subcommittee hearing she led on private spaces, she showed a blurry screenshot of what her “naked silhouette” that she said was recorded on a hidden camera on the property that was mentioned in her speech.

She launched a bid for governor of South Carolina this month. Among her primary opponents is South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson (R), who she accused of not adequately investigating her allegations. Wilson’s office at the time said that Mace “either does not understand or is purposefully mischaracterizing” Wilson’s role.