Mace sued for defamation over allegations in stunning floor speech
A man Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) accused of being part of a group of 'predators' in a stunning House floor speech is suing her for defamation.
The complaint, filed Friday in federal court, sets up a battle over the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers against lawsuits for things they say and do as part of their legislative work. Mace's office cited the protection in a press release about her floor remarks.
Brian Musgrave was one of four men Mace named in the February speech in which she made a series of allegations of sexual abuse and voyeurism, naming Musgrave, her ex-fiance, and two other South Carolina men. All of the men have denied wrongdoing.
'Now, it is with unbridled disgust that Brian Musgrave through this lawsuit is forced to utter the words: 'I am not a rapist.' 'I am not a predator.' 'I am not a sex trafficker,'' the lawsuit states.
'Through this action, Brian Musgrave seeks to recover that which has been wrongfully taken from him – his good name and reputation,' it continues.
Mace claimed to have found a hidden camera on a property owned by her ex-fiance and Musgrave that had intimate photos of women that were taken without their knowledge or consent.
The complaint acknowledges Musgrave jointly owns the South Carolina condo with the congresswoman's ex-fiance, who is described as Musgrave's longtime friend. But the suit says Musgrave didn't place the camera, never had access to it and was not present for any of what Mace has alleged.
Musgrave was not accused of the most serious offenses that Mace listed in the speech, such as being raped after having blacked out one night and believing she was 'purposefully incapacitated.'
But she listed Musgrave along with the other three men and their photos on a sign she displayed on the House floor that said: 'Predators.'
Filed in federal court in Charleston, S.C., the lawsuit names as defendants Mace and five unnamed people who are alleged to have conspired with her. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, an appointee of former President Obama.
The lawsuit will be a major and uncommon test for the Speech and Debate protections given to lawmakers.
A press release from Mace's about the speech at the time referenced that protection and defended the veracity of her allegations: 'Any and all statements made by Members on the House Floor are quintessential 'legislative acts,' and protected by the Speech and Debate clause afforded under the Constitution of the United States. Her statements tonight are not conjecture, they are not allegations, they are facts based on information she uncovered and documents she accidentally discovered.'
Notably, Musgrave's claims do not focus on Mace's remarks on the House floor, instead taking aim at a prepared version she distributed to the press beforehand, her display of the poster outside her congressional office and a series of social media posts she made on the social platform X.
'While the speech and debate clause of the United States Constitution affords broad protection to members of Congress acting as part of its deliberative process, it 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 lawsuit states.
Mace's congressional office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits The high court unanimously said courts can't use a higher standard to block suits for damages for some disability discrimination claims and not others. But they declined to set the standard. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News WASHINGTON – Disability rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court on June 12 made it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools for damages. Not only did all the justices agree that some courts were using too tough a standard to block lawsuits like one brought by a Minnesota teenager with a rare form of epilepsy, but they also rejected her school's argument that the real issue is the standard is too lax for other types of disability discrimination claims. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line,' Shira Wakschlag, an attorney with The Arc of the United States, said in a statement after the decision. But the court didn't settle the larger issue of what the standard should be in all cases. The justices only said there shouldn't be different standards for discrimination claims involving educational instruction. And two of the court's six conservatives – Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh – said the school raised 'serious arguments' that courts are getting that standard wrong. In a concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that he hopes 'lower courts will carefully consider whether the existing standards comport with the Constitution and the underlying statutory text.' Two of the court's three liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – pushed back, saying the school's argument that a person with a disability must prove there was an intent to discriminate is clearly wrong. 'The statutes' text and history, as well as this Court's precedent, foreclose any such purpose requirement,' Sotomayor wrote in a concurring opinion. More: In unanimous decision, Supreme Court makes it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools How the case got to the Supreme Court The issue in the Minnesota case was whether the school failed to accommodate the special needs of Ava Tharpe, whose rare form of epilepsy makes it difficult to attend school in the morning. Federal courts agreed with the family that the school hadn't done enough and needed to provide evening instruction. But the courts said the Tharpes couldn't use the Americans with Disabilities Act to try to get the school to pay for outside teachers and other expenses incurred before they won their case. And they said the Tharpes couldn't use the Rehabilitation Act to seek a court order binding the school to teach Ava after regular school hours. Judges on the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits to go forward involving educational services for children with disabilities. That's a tougher standard than the 'deliberate indifference' rule often used when weighing other types of disability discrimination claims. The school argued that 'deliberate indifference' is too lax. Their lawyers said the plain text of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination. What the Supreme Court decided The Supreme Court said they couldn't consider that argument because they'd only been asked to decide whether the lower courts were correct to apply a 'uniquely stringent' standard for cases like Ava's – not to decide what the standard should be in all cases. 'We will not entertain the (school) District's invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. Thomas said he agreed that it wouldn't have been right for the court to take on the larger issue with its significant ramifications for disability rights. But in his concurring opinion that Kavanaugh joined, Thomas said he'd be willing to do so in an 'appropriate case.' 'Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard under two widely utilized federal statutes is an issue of national importance,' he wrote, 'and the (school) District has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect.'
Axios
3 hours ago
- Axios
What to know about Minnesota lawmakers' shootings that killed Melissa Hortman
A manhunt was under way in Minnesota over Saturday night for the suspect in the shooting of two state lawmakers at their Twin Cities homes that Gov. Tim Walz called a "politically motivated assassination." The big picture: Minnesota state House Democratic Leader Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were killed and state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were wounded in the attacks by a gunman whom officials said was impersonating a police officer. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said at a Saturday briefing that the injured couple were receiving care in the hospital after undergoing surgery for their gunshot wounds. The suspect, whom officials identified as Vance Luther Boelter, 57, was still at large as of early Sunday and the FBI has offered a reward of up to $50,000 for information leading to his arrest and conviction. What happened: Police said they responded about 2am Saturday to a report of a shooting at Hoffman's home in Champlin, about 22 miles north of downtown Minneapolis. Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Bruley said at a Saturday briefing that around 3:35am officers proactively checked on Hortman at her home some five miles away. Police exchanged gunfire with the suspect at Hortman's Brookyln Park home, but Bruley said he escaped. What they found: The suspect abandoned at Hortman's home an SUV that was similar to a police squad vehicle, investigators said.
4 hours ago
Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition. Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House has passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people. 'What sense does that make?' she asked. 'What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?' The measure is part of the version of President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4. The bill as it stands would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net. For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails — or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul. Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry — based largely on their past experience — that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said. 'It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid,' said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. 'If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping.' Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage. The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify. A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere. Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help. It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully. 'Should I expect the government to take care of him?' he asked. 'I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity.' About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage. A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. 'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said. One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage. She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able — but worries about how that would be sorted out. 'It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it,' she said. Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with 'serious or complex' medical conditions could be granted exceptions. She now works about 15 hours a week in 'gig' jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer. Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability. 'I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not have health insurance,' she said. Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago. The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days. 'There's no way I could have afforded that,' he said. 'I would have lost my foot and probably died.'
