Nancy Mace Slams ACLU Attorney for Refusing to Define “Sex” at Supreme Court Title IX Hearing on Trans Sports
At a Jan. 13, 2026 Supreme Court oral argument in West Virginia v. B.P.J., ACLU attorney Joshua Block declined to define “sex,” prompting Rep. Nancy Mace’s sharp criticism during a high-profile Title IX dispute over girls’ sports.
- Supreme Court argument: Joshua Block said an explicit definition of “sex” was unnecessary for resolving West Virginia v. B.P.J.
- Political reaction: Rep. Nancy Mace and conservative legal groups publicly criticized Block’s refusal to offer a concise definition.
- Legal stakes: The case could determine whether states may bar biological males from girls’ sports under Title IX and the Constitution.
- Broader impact: Ruling may influence state laws, school policies, community dynamics and competitive athletics nationwide.
Block’s comments at the hearing
During oral argument, Joshua Block told the justices he did not think defining “sex” was necessary to resolve the case, saying,
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex.”
He urged the Court not to center its decision on a single fixed definition and at one point conceded, “I think for this case, you can accept… that we’re talking about what they’ve termed to be biological sex.”
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back, noting Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination “must mean something,” and asked how the Court could apply the law without settling on what “sex” means. Conservative justices, including Justice Samuel Alito, pressed attorneys on definitions such as “man” and “woman”, producing tense exchanges and moments where lawyers struggled to offer simple, agreed-upon definitions.
Source coverage of these exchanges is reported in outlets including Fox News: Trans athlete’s attorney suggests ‘sex’ should not be defined during Supreme Court Title IX case and commentary summarized by Ground News.
Post‑hearing interaction and criticism
After the argument, Block reportedly declined to give a short, public definition when approached by reporters; video shared online shows him walking away when asked to define the term. Rep. Nancy Mace posted the footage on X and wrote: “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.” Coverage of that exchange appears at Fox News: Nancy Mace rips trans athlete’s attorney for refusing to define ‘sex’ at SCOTUS women’s sports hearing and MEAWW.
Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer John Bursch, representing West Virginia and the female athletes, called Block’s reluctance “completely bizarre.” Bursch said a workable definition is necessary to interpret Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, pointing to Title IX’s history and references to “each of the sexes.” This position was reported by Fox News.
What Block said about competitive impact
Block disputed claims that transgender athletes like Becky Pepper-Jackson would automatically displace girls on teams or trophies, arguing competitive losses are part of sport among cisgender athletes as well rather than an inherent unfair advantage. He also warned that forcing a transgender athlete onto a boys’ team could be “harmful.” Reports of these arguments are available in post-hearing accounts such as Fox News and MEAWW.
Legal context and stakes
West Virginia v. B.P.J. arose from a 2021 state law prohibiting students designated male at birth from competing in female school sports. The case asks whether that law violates Title IX and constitutional guarantees. A ruling for West Virginia could uphold similar laws in multiple states; conversely, a ruling for the athlete could block such bans. Key reporting on the case’s stakes appears in AOL and Fox News.
Legal outcomes rest heavily on how “sex” is interpreted: a narrow, biological reading could support state bans; a broader reading that includes gender identity could render exclusionary laws unlawful under federal protections. As Chief Justice Roberts noted, judges seek workable standards to decide real cases; defense and plaintiff lawyers disagree on which standard the Court should adopt and the scope of any ruling.
Coverage, perspectives and partisan dynamics
Immediate commentary criticizing Block largely came from conservative outlets and organizations, which amplified Rep. Mace’s post and ADF’s criticisms. Ground.news observed initial coverage leaned right, while some accounts noted even conservative justices seemed uncertain about how broad a ruling might be. Few prominent left-leaning outlets had detailed coverage of the specific hearing highlights at the time of reporting; see summaries at Ground News and broader reporting at AOL.
Implications for schools, communities and politics
Economic: Local school budgets, athletic program logistics and related local economies could be affected if districts must reassign athletes, split teams, or change staffing and travel plans.
Political: The case is likely to mobilize state lawmakers, voters and advocacy groups. A ruling upholding state bans could spur similar legislation and influence state elections; a ruling for the athlete could prompt other policy responses.
Social and cultural: In many rural and conservative communities, school sports are central institutions. Confusion about eligibility could heighten tensions among parents, coaches and athletes and disrupt seasons and college recruiting for high school players.
Practical steps for schools: Districts should monitor the decision, update eligibility rules, communicate with families, train coaches and athletic directors, and consult counsel in states with bans. Clear local policies can reduce last-minute eligibility disruptions.
Reporting on the parties
The plaintiff, Becky Pepper-Jackson, sued after West Virginia barred her from girls’ sports under the 2021 law. The State of West Virginia and Alliance Defending Freedom defend the law on grounds of protecting fair competition and preserving opportunities for biological females. The ACLU represents Pepper-Jackson, arguing the ban violates Title IX and constitutional rights. Contemporary reporting appears at Fox News.
Sources and further reading
- Fox News: Nancy Mace rips trans athlete’s attorney for refusing to define ‘sex’ at SCOTUS women’s sports hearing
- Fox News: Trans athlete’s attorney suggests ‘sex’ should not be defined during Supreme Court Title IX case
- MEAWW: Nancy Mace rips trans athletes’ lawyer for refusing to define ‘sex’ at SCOTUS hearing
- Ground News: ACLU can’t define ‘sex’ in transgender Supreme Court case
- AOL: Even conservative justices seemed torn on how far a trans-athlete ruling should go
Reporting drew from available accounts and video of the January 13 oral argument and public statements posted by participants and commentators. No final decision was available at the time of reporting.
