Nancy Mace Rips ACLU After Attorney Declines to Define ‘Sex’ at SCOTUS Hearing in High-Stakes Transgender Sports Case
Rep. Nancy Mace sharply criticized ACLU attorney Joshua Block after he refused to define “sex” during the Jan. 13, 2026 Supreme Court hearing in West Virginia v. B.P.J., a pivotal Title IX case involving transgender athletes.
- Case: West Virginia v. B.P.J. challenges a West Virginia law barring biological males from girls’ sports.
- Hearing flashpoint: ACLU attorney Joshua Block repeatedly resisted defining “sex” at oral argument, drawing rebukes from justices.
- Political fallout: Rep. Nancy Mace posted video of the exchange and accused the ACLU of lacking credibility; ADF’s John Bursch called Block’s stance “completely bizarre.”
What happened at the Supreme Court hearing
At the Jan. 13 hearing, attorneys and justices debated whether Title IX protections should turn on a legal or biological definition of “sex.” Joshua Block, representing Becky Pepper-Jackson with ACLU support, told the Court he did not think a formal definition of “sex” was necessary for the Title IX analysis the justices should perform.
Chief Justice John Roberts pressed on how the Court could resolve sex-discrimination claims if “sex” had no fixed legal meaning. Justice Neil Gorsuch raised practical concerns about limited roster spots in school sports where cuts matter. (Sources: Fox News: “Trans athlete’s attorney suggests sex should not be defined during SCOTUS Title IX case”)
Block said Title IX covers broader sex- or gender-based discrimination and, for the sake of resolving this case, that the Court could accept parties’ framing of “biological sex.” He later declined follow-up questions outside the Court. (Sources: Fox News: “Nancy Mace rips trans athlete’s attorney for refusing to define sex at SCOTUS women’s sports hearing”)
Why the exchange mattered
Block’s refusal to provide a firm, on-the-record definition alarmed critics who maintain Title IX was enacted to protect women and girls as defined by biological sex. Opponents point to statutory language — including references to “each of the sexes” — as evidence of a biological understanding. Supporters of the ACLU’s approach say Title IX should focus on preventing discrimination broadly, warning that rigid definitions could exclude transgender people from protections. (Sources: Fox News)
Reactions after the hearing
Rep. Nancy Mace posted footage on X showing Block avoiding a Fox News reporter who asked him to define “sex.” Mace wrote: “If the ACLU can’t even define what sex is, they have no credibility lecturing anyone about sex discrimination.” Her post amplified conservative criticism of the ACLU strategy. (Source: Fox News)
John Bursch of the Alliance Defending Freedom called Block’s approach “completely bizarre,” saying Title IX’s drafters clearly considered biological sex distinctions and that avoiding a definition undercuts the ACLU’s position.
Coverage and media signals
Immediate coverage skewed to conservative outlets highlighting the clash as a central weakness in the ACLU’s argument. Aggregators such as Ground.News and reports from Fox News drove much of the early framing, which will shape public debate ahead of a likely Court decision.
Arguments from both sides, in plain terms
ACLU / Pepper-Jackson
Position: The ACLU argued the West Virginia law harms Becky Pepper-Jackson by excluding her from girls’ sports because she is transgender. Block urged the Court to focus on Title IX as a shield against sex-based discrimination in broader forms rather than rigid statutory labels; for argument’s sake, he said the Court could accept the parties’ framing of “biological sex” to resolve the case. (Source: Fox News)
West Virginia / ADF
Position: West Virginia and the female athletes argue the law protects fair competition for girls and reflects biological sex distinctions intended by Title IX’s drafters. They contend allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports undermines opportunities and safety for female athletes. (Source: Fox News)
Practical stakes highlighted at oral argument
Justices focused on real-world effects: Justice Gorsuch noted that many sports cut teams and roster spots are limited, meaning displacement by biological males can be decisive. Block acknowledged some displacements have occurred and called them “unfortunate,” but argued they are not necessarily legally unfair for purposes of the Court’s analysis. Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly asked how to apply Title IX if “sex” had no clear legal meaning. (Source: Fox News)
Implications for Utah
Economic impact
High school and college athletics generate travel, sponsorships, and local spending. If the Court upholds laws like West Virginia’s, Utah schools and colleges could face compliance costs to separate teams or revise policies. Proponents argue biological-sex rules protect girls’ scholarships and local funding distribution.
Political consequences
Utah’s conservative-leaning electorate may see a ruling for West Virginia as momentum for similar state laws. Lawmakers could introduce or reinforce statutes clarifying participation rules in girls’ sports ahead of local elections and policy debates.
Social effects
Schools, coaches, parents, and athletes could face heated disputes at board meetings and youth programs over roster rules, restroom access, and locker-room policies—intensifying divisions between inclusion advocates and those prioritizing biological-sex protections.
Cultural relevance
The debate ties into larger conversations in Utah about gender identity, religious liberty, and family values. How leaders respond will matter to voters who view the issue as central to community and faith norms.
Practical applications for residents
- Schools: Athletic directors and superintendents should review participation policies and prepare for potential legal shifts depending on the Court’s decision.
- Parents and athletes: Expect possible changes to tryouts, eligibility reviews, and appeals processes; girls’ sports advocates may press for policy changes to protect roster spots.
- Policymakers: State lawmakers may introduce bills to clarify rules in Utah, citing the Supreme Court decision and concerns about fair competition.
Sources and further reading
Reporting draws on the Jan. 13, 2026 oral argument and post-hearing public statements by participants. Full stories and primary coverage include:
- 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 SCOTUS Title IX case”
- Meaww: “Nancy Mace rips trans athletes lawyer for refusing to define s*x at SCOTUS hearing”
- Ground.News aggregation: “ACLU can’t define sex in transgender Supreme Court case”
(This article preserves facts, quotations, and source URLs as reported in the linked coverage.)
