Rep. Nancy Mace Slams ACLU Lawyer for Refusing to Define “Sex” at High‑Profile SCOTUS Hearing on Transgender Athletes
Rep. Nancy Mace criticized ACLU attorney Joshua Block after he repeatedly declined to define “sex” during the January 13, 2026 Supreme Court hearing in West Virginia v. B.P.J., a pivotal Title IX case over transgender athletes’ participation.
- Case: West Virginia v. B.P.J., challenge by transgender athlete Becky Pepper‑Jackson to West Virginia’s ban on trans females competing in girls’ sports (Fox News).
- Moment: ACLU attorney Joshua Block initially declined to give a single definition of “sex,” drawing criticism from Rep. Nancy Mace and commentary from opposing counsel (Fox News).
- Follow‑up: Block later conceded, for this case, that “you can accept … biological sex” in practical terms (Fox News).
Key information
The case centers on whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause permit states to limit participation in girls’ and women’s sports to biological females. The plaintiff is transgender athlete Becky Pepper‑Jackson; the state law at issue bars biological males from girls’ sports. Coverage of the hearing and the subsequent exchanges has been widely circulated in conservative outlets and aggregator sites (Fox News; Ground News).
What happened at the hearing
At the January 13 Supreme Court session, questions about the meaning of the word “sex” dominated argument. Joshua Block, representing Becky Pepper‑Jackson and affiliated with the ACLU, urged the Court not to anchor Title IX analysis to a single definition of sex, arguing the statute addresses discrimination tied to gender expression and stereotypes as well as biology (Fox News).
Chief Justice John Roberts pressed for a workable definition so the law can be applied; several justices raised practical concerns about sports eligibility, roster limits and how different definitions would affect schools. Justice Neil Gorsuch observed that many programs use cut lines and roster limits that could be altered by the Court’s ruling (Fox News).
Post‑hearing exchange with reporters
After the argument, reporters asked Block to define “sex.” According to post‑hearing reporting, Block initially declined and walked away from the microphone; video of the interaction was circulated online and reposted by Rep. Mace (Fox News).
Later during argument, Block said, “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,” appearing to offer a narrower, case‑specific concession (Fox News).
Responses from lawmakers and opposing counsel
Rep. Nancy Mace publicly condemned Block’s refusal to define sex, posting footage on X and writing that if the ACLU “can’t even define what sex is, they have no credibility lecturing anyone about sex discrimination.” Her critique framed the exchange as undermining the ACLU’s authority on sex‑based discrimination issues (Fox News).
John Bursch, lead counsel for West Virginia and the female athletes challenging the law, described Block’s refusal as “completely bizarre,” arguing courts need clarity about what “sex” means under Title IX and the Constitution to resolve such claims (Fox News).
Coverage, sources and what’s missing
Early coverage of the hearing emphasized the moments when counsel struggled with definitions. Much of the immediate reporting compiling those moments came from right‑leaning outlets; aggregators noted the conservative thread in early reports (Ground News).
At the time of reporting, a formal ACLU statement addressing these specific criticisms had not been widely published in major left‑leaning outlets; reporters note further filings, transcripts and commentary are likely as the case proceeds (AOL overview of the case context).
Why the definition of “sex” matters in court
The legal question is whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause prohibit states from distinguishing participation in sex‑segregated sports by biological sex. If the Court reads “sex” as tied to biology, many state bans that restrict transgender girls’ participation could be upheld. If “sex” is interpreted more broadly to include gender identity or expression, those laws could be struck down. Counsel for both sides warned the decision will reshape how schools apply sex‑based protections and eligibility rules nationwide (Fox News; AOL).
“Transgender athletes SCOTUS” and the national debate
This case is among the highest‑profile fights over transgender participation in sports to reach the Supreme Court. Advocates for transgender students argue bans exclude vulnerable youth and harm mental health; proponents of sex‑based protections say allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports undermines opportunities and safety for female athletes. The dispute implicates school policy, state legislation and interpretation of civil‑rights statutes (Fox News).
Implications for California
Economic and institutional impact
California’s large public school and university systems could face policy and compliance changes depending on the Court’s interpretation. A ruling allowing states to ban transgender girls from girls’ sports would likely have limited direct effect in California given existing state protections; conversely, a ruling against state bans could reinforce California’s current policies (Case context).
Political consequences
California leaders have generally supported transgender rights and Title IX protections that account for gender identity. A restrictive ruling could prompt state lawmakers and advocates to reaffirm protections or expand them, while energizing political debate in local and statewide races and school board contests.
Social and community effects
School administrators, athletic directors, coaches, parents and students in California will monitor outcomes closely. Local advocacy may increase on both sides—champions of transgender youth and organizations focused on protecting female athletic opportunities—which could influence participation, funding, and school climates.
Practical applications for families and schools
Families and school officials may need new guidance from the California Department of Education and legal counsel depending on any change to the federal baseline established under Title IX. Athletic leagues might revise eligibility rules and tryout procedures to address fairness and roster concerns raised at argument (AOL overview and legal background).
Where reporting stands and what to watch next
The hearing produced widely shared exchanges over definitions and language. Video of Block declining to define “sex” and Rep. Mace’s reposting drove public attention. Reporters and legal analysts are expected to publish full transcripts, expert commentary and additional filings in the coming days. Observers across the country, including California stakeholders, will track how the Court frames “sex” under Title IX and the practical effects on state sports policies (Fox News; Ground News).
Sources: Fox News; Fox News; Ground News; AOL.
