Musgrave v. Mace, 2:25-cv-01823

Defendant Rep. Nancy Mace (member of Congress) named Musgrave and others as alleged sexual predators during a speech on the House floor, accompanied by a poster and subsequent rebroadcast on social media and to the press.
Alleged statements were made as part of discussions of legislative proposals related to protections for women; Musgrave claims these statements were false and motivated by Mace's personal dispute with a former fiancé.
Musgrave sued for libel, defamation, conspiracy, and constitutional violations (Bivens claim), seeking both damages and injunctive relief against Mace, her staff (Jane/John Does), and the United States.
The United States moved to substitute itself as defendant under the Westfall Act, arguing Mace and staff acted within the scope of federal employment, making such claims subject to the FTCA, which bars libel and similar torts.
Motions to dismiss were filed by the United States and Mace; Musgrave sought limited discovery about the scope of employment certification.
The Court held a hearing and ruled on the motions, ultimately dismissing the action with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mace's statements were within the scope	Mace acted with personal motives unrelated to congressional duties	Statements were within scope as they included legislative matters	Within scope—encompassed by employment
Applicability of FTCA bar to libel/defamation claims	FTCA bar shouldn't apply if conduct was outside employment scope	FTCA expressly bars libel-related claims against federal employees	FTCA bar applies; claims dismissed
Plaintiff’s right to discovery on scope of employment	Entitled to limited discovery to challenge government certification	No right to discovery unless sufficient facts alleged to rebut certification	No right; Plaintiff failed to rebut certification
Viability of Bivens & injunctive claims	Constitutional and injunctive relief is available	Bivens does not cover reputational harm; injunctive relief barred by FTCA	Bivens & injunctive claims dismissed

Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (scope of employment certification reviewable by courts & claim substitution procedure)
Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (scope of employment for congressional communications covers statements to press)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standards for plausibility on Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (explains plausibility requirement for pleadings)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes limited circumstances for constitutional torts)
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (defamation not a constitutional deprivation; limits Bivens claims)
Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (Speech or Debate Clause immunity for congressional actions)