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.
