Rep. Nancy Mace slams ACLU lawyer for refusing to define “sex” at Supreme Court hearing in West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Rep. Nancy Mace criticized ACLU attorney Joshua Block after he declined to define “sex” during January 13, 2026, Supreme Court oral arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J., a case about bans on transgender girls in girls’ sports.
- Heated exchange: ACLU attorney Joshua Block declined to give a fixed legal definition of “sex” during oral argument, prompting pushback from Chief Justice John Roberts.
- Political reaction: Rep. Nancy Mace posted video on X and said the ACLU “has no credibility lecturing anyone about sex discrimination.”
- Legal stakes: The case could determine whether Title IX protects based on biological sex or broader concepts including gender identity, reshaping school and sports policies.
- Local impact: Inland Empire schools, leagues and officials may need policy updates, training and potential legal guidance depending on the Court’s ruling.
What happened at the hearing
West Virginia v. B.P.J. centered on whether state laws banning transgender girls from girls’ sports violate Title IX or the Constitution. Joshua Block, representing Becky Pepper-Jackson (identified in filings as B.P.J.), urged the Court not to rely on a single fixed definition of “sex” when interpreting Title IX.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block told the Court, arguing the statute addresses a range of sex-based discrimination concerns beyond strict biology.
Chief Justice John Roberts pressed back, saying the word “sex” in the statute “must mean something,” and other justices pressed for clarity about whether Title IX’s protections depend on biological distinctions between males and females. The exchange underscored a legal tug-of-war over whether the law is rooted in biology or broader concepts of sex and gender.
(Source: Fox News)
Post-hearing exchanges and footage shared by Mace
After the hearing, reporters and lawmakers pressed Block to define “sex” outside the courtroom. According to reports, he declined to answer and walked away when asked by Fox News Digital. Rep. Nancy Mace posted video of the interaction 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.”
Mace’s post and the clip prompted strong reactions from conservative commentators and groups emphasizing a biological definition of sex; supporters of transgender rights argue protections should consider gender identity and broader experiences of discrimination. The ACLU, while known for defending transgender students’ rights in prior filings, did not issue a detailed new public statement in the available reporting.
Reactions from opposing counsel and the Court
John Bursch, representing West Virginia and the female athletes, called Block’s position “completely bizarre,” arguing Title IX was written around biological distinctions and saying, “I don’t know how you can decide a case interpreting sex under Title IX and under the Equal Protection Clause by not defining sex.”
Other justices pressed on real-world effects. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted potential consequences for many sports; Justice Samuel Alito pressed lawyers on definitions of “man” and “woman.” Reports indicated several justices seemed open to upholding state bans, though the Court’s final decision remains pending.
Why the definition matters in law and sports
At issue is how courts read federal civil-rights laws like Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. If “sex” is read strictly as biological sex, laws separating sports by anatomy gain support. If “sex” includes gender identity or broader sex-based discrimination, state bans could be unlawful. The Court’s interpretation could reshape policies across schools, colleges and youth leagues nationwide.
(Source: Fox News)
Implications for the Inland Empire, California
Economic impact: High schools and colleges in the Inland Empire could face roster, eligibility and tournament changes if the Court’s ruling alters permissible policies. Districts may need to revise procedures, retrain staff and adjust budgets.
Political consequences: Local officials and voters hold differing views on transgender rights; a ruling upholding bans might embolden similar local policies, while a ruling against bans could spur protections and regulatory changes at state or district levels.
Social effects: Student-athletes, families and coaches could face immediate uncertainty. Transgender students and advocates may feel threatened or relieved depending on the outcome. Mental-health providers might see increased demand for support.
Practical applications: Districts may update eligibility forms, medical-assessment procedures and locker-room protocols. Coaches and athletic directors should prepare for policy and schedule adjustments. Legal-aid and advocacy groups may offer workshops and guidance.
Media coverage and source context
Coverage of the exchange has been heavier in conservative outlets emphasizing Block’s refusal to define sex and Rep. Mace’s criticism. Ground News’ bias analysis indicated much initial coverage came from right-leaning sources. Independent legal observers note oral arguments often include strategic positioning and that an attorney’s refusal to adopt a single public definition can be a litigation tactic.
The ACLU’s broader legal approach has been to protect transgender people from discrimination; available reports show no extended ACLU statement responding directly to Mace’s video as of the hearing date.
(Sources: Ground News; Fox News)
Reporting notes and sources
This article draws on reporting from multiple outlets that covered the January 13, 2026, Supreme Court oral argument and post-hearing exchanges, including video Rep. Mace shared on X. Primary sources and coverage used for this report include:
- Fox News — Mace video and post-hearing coverage
- Meaww — reporting on Mace’s criticism
- Fox News — oral-argument exchange coverage
- Ground News — coverage and bias analysis
- AOL — analysis of potential Court direction
No extended ACLU statement responding to the post-hearing criticism was available in the cited reporting. The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. will determine how federal law applies to transgender athletes under Title IX and could prompt immediate policy shifts in schools and sports organizations across the Inland Empire and the nation.
