Nancy Mace lashes out after ACLU lawyer refuses to define “sex” at Transgender Athletes Supreme Court hearing
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 case testing Title IX and girls’ sports eligibility.
- ACLU counsel Joshua Block initially refused to define “sex” at oral argument, then conceded the case could be viewed as involving “biological sex.”
- Critics including Rep. Nancy Mace and Alliance Defending Freedom called the refusal problematic for Title IX and equal protection analysis.
- The case could reshape school sports policies nationwide, with local effects for districts such as those in San Diego depending on the Court’s ruling.
What unfolded at the Supreme Court hearing
The matter before the justices, West Virginia v. B.P.J., challenges a West Virginia statute that bars people assigned male at birth from competing on girls’ teams. The law is defended as protecting women’s sports under Title IX, while opponents, represented by the ACLU for transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson, argue the statute unlawfully discriminates against transgender students.
During oral argument on Jan. 13, 2026, ACLU attorney Joshua Block repeatedly resisted offering a fixed definition of “sex” when pressed by the bench. Block told the Court,
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex.”
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back, noting a prohibition on sex discrimination “must mean something.” Under questioning, Block later narrowed his view:
“I think for this case, you can accept… that we’re talking about what they’ve termed to be biological sex.”
That exchange became a focal point for critics who said Block’s initial refusal — and subsequent concession — undercut the ACLU’s framing. Reporting on the hearing and argument dynamics is summarized in coverage such as Trans athletes attorney suggests sex should not be defined during SCOTUS Title IX case and Inside SCOTUS hearing bound to be a turning point in legal, cultural conversation on trans athletes.
Post-hearing exchanges and public reactions
After the argument, Block declined to provide a personal definition of sex to reporters, telling Fox News Digital that “I don’t think that’s what’s at issue in this case,” and walking away from further questions. That refusal drew criticism from lawmakers and conservative legal advocates.
Rep. Nancy Mace amplified the exchange, posting video clips on X and writing 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.” Her post fed broader debate and calls for clearer legal definitions in disputes over sports eligibility (Nancy Mace rips trans athlete’s attorney for refusing to define sex at SCOTUS women’s sports hearing).
John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom, representing the female athletes and West Virginia, called Block’s approach “completely bizarre,” arguing Title IX and equal protection litigation requires a working definition of sex and emphasizing Title IX’s historical drafting around biological distinctions (reporting).
Coverage that emphasized Block’s reluctance primarily appeared in conservative-leaning outlets; at the time of filing, searches did not show a public response from the ACLU or Block directly addressing these criticisms.
Legal stakes: Title IX, equal protection and definitions
At issue are two core legal questions: how Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination should be interpreted, and whether state laws that restrict participation by transgender students violate the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees. Defenders of bans argue Title IX was enacted to protect opportunities for females and relies on biological distinctions. Opponents contend excluding transgender girls violates federal civil rights protections and that courts should interpret “sex” inclusively.
Oral argument exposed whether courts can resolve such disputes without a bright-line definition of sex. Advocates on both sides warn that the Court’s decision could reshape school policies nationwide, affecting roster rules, privacy practices and litigation strategies (Inside SCOTUS hearing).
Implications for San Diego, California
Economic impact: San Diego school districts and college athletic programs could face policy changes depending on the Court’s ruling. An outcome upholding state-style bans might require revisions to roster policies, compliance strategies and recruitment practices, while a ruling striking down bans could protect existing inclusive policies.
Political consequences: Local officials and lawmakers in California — which has state protections for transgender students — may be drawn into disputes, defending local policies or considering new measures in response to a national ruling.
Social and cultural effects: Families, coaches and students in San Diego might see immediate changes to locker room policies, team rosters and participation rules. The debate can intensify school board discussions and prompt advocacy and legal support from both transgender-rights and women’s-sports groups.
Practical steps: School districts should review policies and counsel guidance on roster management, nondiscrimination rules and communications plans. Athletic directors may prepare contingency measures for different possible rulings.
Sources and further reading
- Nancy Mace rips trans athlete’s attorney for refusing to define sex at SCOTUS women’s sports hearing — Fox News
- Trans athletes attorney suggests sex should not be defined during SCOTUS Title IX case — Fox News
- Inside SCOTUS hearing bound to be a turning point in legal, cultural conversation on trans athletes — Fox News
- Nancy Mace rips trans athletes’ lawyer for refusing to define sex at SCOTUS hearing — Meaww
- Supreme Court appears set to uphold state bans on transgender girls in school sports — AOL News
Reporting note: This article preserves original facts and source URLs cited in reporting. Coverage emphasized here drew principally from the listed outlets; at the time of publication, no public counterstatement from the ACLU or Joshua Block addressing criticisms was identified.
