Mace blasts ACLU lawyer for refusing to define “sex” at Supreme Court hearing on transgender athletes
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., sparking debate over Title IX, equal protection, and transgender participation in girls’ sports.
Key takeaways
- Rep. Nancy Mace shared video on X of ACLU attorney Joshua Block declining to define “sex,” challenging the ACLU’s credibility on sex-discrimination arguments; Fox News and Meaww covered the post.
- At oral argument, Joshua Block said Title IX did not require an “accurate definition of sex,” though he later allowed the Court to accept for this case that the parties meant “biological sex”; reporting by Fox News.
- Opposing counsel called Block’s refusal to define sex “completely bizarre,” arguing the law and equal-protection analysis require a concrete definition to resolve whether states may bar biological males from girls’ teams.
What happened at the hearing
The Supreme Court heard West Virginia v. B.P.J., a case challenging a West Virginia law that bars biological males from participating in girls’ and women’s school sports. The ACLU’s Joshua Block represented transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson.
During oral argument on Jan. 13, Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Block on how the Court should interpret the word “sex” in Title IX. Roberts noted Title IX “prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex” and asked how the statute can be applied without a clear meaning of that term.
Block responded that he did not think Title IX requires “an accurate definition of sex” for every dispute and suggested the statute can encompass broader forms of sex-based discrimination, including harms to boys and men who are treated differently for gender expression. He also argued that forcing a transgender girl to play on boys’ teams could cause harm.
“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,” Block said after argument, while declining to provide his own fixed definition when approached by reporters.
Justices’ concerns and practical questions
Several justices, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, voiced concerns about the practical effect on girls’ rosters if biological males compete in female sports. Justice Samuel Alito questioned how courts could craft a workable legal standard when basic categories such as man, woman, boy, and girl are at issue.
Mace’s response and the social media clip
Rep. Nancy Mace shared a clip on X of the exchange 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.” Her post amplified a political narrative questioning whether the ACLU’s position provides sufficient legal clarity; coverage of her post appeared in outlets such as Fox News and Meaww.
Block’s later comments and post-hearing exchange
After the hearing, Block told reporters that although he resisted a strict statutory definition during oral argument, “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.” He declined to supply a personal definition and walked away from further questions; that exchange was reported by Fox News.
John Bursch of the Alliance Defending Freedom, representing the female athletes and West Virginia, called Block’s earlier refusal to define sex “completely bizarre,” arguing that resolving Title IX and constitutional equal-protection claims requires a concrete legal meaning of sex.
Legal stakes: Title IX and equal protection
The case raises two central legal questions: how the term “sex” should be read under Title IX (the 1972 federal law barring sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs) and whether the Constitution’s equal-protection guarantee limits a state’s ability to define athletic eligibility by biological sex.
Advocates for female athletes argue Title IX was intended to protect opportunities for biological girls and women. Advocates for transgender rights contend excluding trans girls causes harm and can violate federal protections. The Court’s resolution will affect statutes, school policies, and athletic eligibility nationwide; reporting and analysis of these stakes appeared in outlets such as Fox News and in aggregated summaries at Ground News.
Media coverage and the partisan tilt
Coverage of Block’s exchange and Mace’s criticism has been particularly prominent in right-leaning outlets that emphasize practical effects on girls’ sports and portray the ACLU’s stance as evasive. Readers are encouraged to consult multiple outlets for a full view; aggregated coverage notes a relative scarcity of left-leaning perspectives in the items cited here.
Background on West Virginia v. B.P.J.
The suit began when Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender athlete, challenged West Virginia’s law barring biological males from girls’ K–12 and college sports. The litigation moved through lower courts and reached the Supreme Court to decide whether Title IX or the Constitution prevents states from adopting such bans; see reporting at Fox News.
Implications for Huntington Beach, California
Economic and school-sports impact
- Local districts could face policy and legal choices depending on the ruling; if the Court upholds bans like West Virginia’s, California districts that currently permit transgender participation may face challenges or pressure to change policies.
- Changes in eligibility rules could affect team rosters, scholarship opportunities, tournaments, booster activities, and the local high-school sports economy in Huntington Beach.
Political consequences locally
- Huntington Beach constituents and leaders—particularly in conservative-leaning areas of Orange County—may use the ruling to press state or school board actions; Rep. Nancy Mace’s criticism is likely to resonate with conservative voters.
Social and community effects
- Expect debates in local media, parent groups, and booster clubs; parents of female athletes may seek clearer protections while parents of transgender youth will seek to preserve access to sports.
- School counselors, athletic directors, and district legal teams may prepare for increased policy inquiries and possible litigation.
Cultural relevance and practical applications
- Huntington Beach’s athletic culture could shift depending on how eligibility rules are interpreted and implemented; districts may review registration forms, locker-room policies, and competitive-eligibility procedures.
- Coaches and athletic directors will likely seek guidance from district counsel and state associations to implement any new standards.
