Nancy Mace Condemns ACLU Attorney After He Refuses to Define “Sex” at Supreme Court Hearing in Transgender Athletes Case
Rep. Nancy Mace criticized ACLU attorney Joshua Block after he declined to define “sex” during the Jan. 13, 2026 Supreme Court hearing in West Virginia v. B.P.J., a pivotal Title IX case over transgender athletes and girls’ sports.
Key takeaways
- Attorney avoided a clear definition: Joshua Block declined to offer a general definition of “sex” during and after oral argument, saying the case could accept the state’s phrasing for its purposes (Fox News, Meaww).
- Public and legal backlash: Rep. Nancy Mace and attorneys for West Virginia criticized the refusal to define sex as undermining credibility on sex-discrimination claims (Fox News).
- High legal stakes: The Court’s decision could reshape how Title IX applies to gender identity and school sports nationwide (AOL).
What happened at the hearing
During oral argument in West Virginia v. B.P.J. on January 13, 2026, justices pressed ACLU attorney Joshua Block to explain how the Court should interpret “sex” under Title IX. Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether Title IX retains meaning if “sex” is not defined as the state uses it. Roberts observed that “Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, it’s a statutory term, it must mean something.” (Fox News).
Block argued that Title IX protects against certain biases that are not strictly biological and said sex includes biological differences but may have “broader connotations.” He cautioned the Court against relying on a narrow biological definition to resolve every dispute, and stated he did not think the statute’s purpose was “to have an accurate definition of sex.” (Fox News).
After the argument, reporters asked Block for a direct definition; he walked away from follow-up questions and only conceded that, “I think for this case, you can accept for the sake of this case that we’re talking about what they’ve termed to be biological sex,” but declined a general definition (Fox News).
Republican lawmaker shares video, calls out ACLU
Rep. Nancy Mace posted video of the exchange on X and wrote that “If the ACLU can’t even define what sex is, they have no credibility lecturing anyone about sex discrimination, which is the whole basis of their argument.” Mace’s post circulated widely among conservative audiences debating protections for female athletes (Fox News, Meaww).
ADF: Not defining sex undermines Title IX arguments
John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom, representing West Virginia and female athletes, called Block’s approach “completely bizarre.” Bursch said he could not see how a court could interpret Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause without defining sex, arguing that lawmakers who enacted Title IX used language tied to biological differences (Fox News).
Arguments about fairness and sports
The plaintiff, Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender athlete, challenged West Virginia’s 2021 law that bars biological males from girls’ sports. Pepper-Jackson and her mother attended the argument. The dispute spotlights questions about competitive balance, single-sex protections, and how Title IX should weigh individual rights against those original statutory aims (Fox News).
Block tried to limit assertions of systemic competitive harm, noting that at the high school level some sports like cross-country are often no-cut and that displacements can happen among cisgender athletes as well. He argued that displacements by transgender athletes can be “unfortunate” but are not necessarily proof of systemic unfairness without biological context, and warned that forcing transgender athletes to compete according to sex assigned at birth could be harmful. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted many sports do have cuts, increasing stakes in those contexts (Fox News).
Coverage and context
Initial coverage and viral clips of the exchange came largely from conservative-leaning outlets; an aggregate sampling at the time leaned conservative, which shaped social attention to certain quotes and video clips. Independent resources including live transcripts and audio from the Supreme Court provide direct records of the argument (Ground News, Fox News, AOL).
Legal backdrop: Title IX and the questions before the Court
Title IX (1972) bars sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs. The core legal question in West Virginia v. B.P.J. is whether a state may exclude transgender girls assigned male at birth from girls’ sports without violating Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause, and whether “sex” in the statute includes gender identity or is limited to biological sex. The Court’s interpretation will affect state laws and school policies nationwide (Fox News).
Implications for the United States
- Economic impact: A ruling favoring broad state control could spur new state laws, litigation, and shifting school budgets; a ruling limiting state exclusions could require schools to restructure teams and resources (Fox News).
- Political consequences: The decision will be politically charged. A ruling for West Virginia could encourage similar legislation; a ruling against it could energize opposition among conservative voters and prompt new policy battles. Rep. Mace’s post shows how lawmakers may use courtroom moments for messaging (Fox News, Meaww).
- Social effects: Families, athletes, and communities could see immediate changes; advocates for women’s sports warn about reduced opportunities while transgender-rights advocates stress harm from exclusionary rules (Fox News).
- Cultural relevance: The case intersects with national debates on identity, civil liberties, and the original aims of Title IX, raising divergent views on how law and biology should interact in sports (Ground News).
- Practical applications: Depending on the ruling, schools may need new policies, training, and guidance from state education agencies and athletic associations; coaches could face compliance and legal risks (Fox News).
Reporting notes and sources
This article draws from contemporaneous reporting and public statements from the January 13 hearing, including courtroom exchanges, post-hearing comments, and subsequent reactions. Key sources used in reporting include:
No decision had been reported as of the hearing date. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming opinion in West Virginia v. B.P.J. will determine how schools, states, and courts apply Title IX to questions about sex and gender in athletics.
