Mace Calls Out ACLU Attorney for Refusing to Define “Sex” at Supreme Court Hearing in High-Stakes Transgender Athletes Case
Rep. Nancy Mace criticized ACLU attorney Joshua Block after a January 13, 2026 Supreme Court hearing in West Virginia v. B.P.J., where Block repeatedly declined to define “sex,” sparking political backlash and national debate over transgender athletes in girls’ sports.
- Case at issue: West Virginia v. B.P.J., a Supreme Court challenge to a state law barring biological males from girls’ K‑12 and college sports — See coverage
- Core dispute: Whether Title IX and the Constitution permit states to limit girls’ sports to biological females — Reporting
- Flashpoint: ACLU attorney Joshua Block repeatedly declined to offer a fixed definition of “sex,” later saying parties could accept a state’s definition “for the sake of this case” — Meaww
What happened at the hearing
On January 13 the Supreme Court considered West Virginia v. B.P.J., a case that could reshape school and state policies on transgender athletes. ACLU attorney Joshua Block, representing Becky Pepper‑Jackson, was pressed by justices to define the term “sex” as used in Title IX.
Block argued that Title IX’s purpose did not require “an accurate definition of sex” and suggested the term could encompass broader concepts, including protections against discrimination for men who defy sex‑stereotypical behavior — reporting.
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back, noting that the term must “mean something” for courts to apply the law — Ground News. Justice Samuel Alito also probed how to define man or woman for statutory application — AOL.
Block acknowledged roster disruptions caused by transgender athletes as “unfortunate” in some circumstances but downplayed those harms as not necessarily unfair; he also argued that placing trans girls on boys’ teams could cause harm. After arguments, Fox News Digital reported Block declined to define “sex” in a hallway interview and walked away without comment — coverage.
Mace’s response and public fallout
Rep. Nancy Mace (R‑S.C.) posted video on X of Block avoiding the question, accusing the ACLU of undercutting its credibility: “If the ACLU can’t even define what sex is, they have no credibility lecturing anyone about sex discrimination…” — reporting.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney John Bursch, representing West Virginia and the female athletes, called Block’s approach “completely bizarre”, saying courts need some definitional grounding to interpret sex‑based laws and that Title IX was written with biological sex distinctions in mind — sources.
Legal stakes and broader context
The question presented is whether federal law or the Constitution prevents states from restricting girls’ sports to biological females. A ruling for either side could affect laws in roughly 27 states that have adopted policies addressing transgender athletes — reporting.
The hearing exposed divisions on the bench. Some conservative justices probed potential consequences of broad or narrow rulings, and media analysis noted even conservative justices seemed divided on how to approach definitional and statutory questions — analysis. Right‑leaning outlets highlighted Block’s refusal to define “sex,” amplifying political reactions — coverage.
What Block said — and later conceded
During oral argument Block urged the Court not to let definitional disputes distract from Title IX’s purpose, suggesting focus remain on whether discrimination occurred rather than a rigid biological definition — reporting.
“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 later said, indicating a temporary practical approach to proceed on that basis.
Implications for Paso Robles, California
- Economic impact: High school and youth sports drive local spending; changes to eligibility rules could affect participation, booster club fundraising, and vendors.
- Political consequences: The case could become a campaign issue in local school board and county races in San Luis Obispo County, pressuring officials on eligibility policies.
- Social effects: Coaches, athletic directors, students and parents in Paso Robles may face immediate adjustments and heightened tensions; clear guidance will be needed to avoid legal exposure.
- Cultural relevance: With a strong community focus on football, cross‑country and track, debates over fairness and safety tied to biological sex resonate locally.
- Practical steps: Local districts should monitor state guidance and the Supreme Court decision; update policies, registration forms and staff training for Title IX compliance.
No immediate ACLU response or definitive turn of events
As of reporting there were no widely published, detailed responses from the ACLU addressing criticism over Block’s comments; coverage has focused on the hearing and immediate reactions rather than long‑term outcomes — coverage.
How the media covered the exchange
Immediate coverage ran heavily in conservative outlets, emphasizing Block’s refusal to define “sex” and amplifying political criticism — Ground News; other outlets prioritized legal stakes and how the Court may reconcile Title IX and equal protection issues — AOL.
Why the definition of “sex” matters in Title IX cases
Title IX prohibits sex‑based discrimination in federally funded education programs. Courts turn on the meaning of “sex” to decide whether policies treat students fairly and whether protections for female athletes should exclude biological males. Attorneys for West Virginia argue Title IX was written with biological sex distinctions in mind — source.
Reporting notes and sources
This article draws on coverage of the January 13, 2026 hearing and reactions from multiple outlets:
- Fox News Digital (coverage of the hearing and Mace’s video)
- Fox News Digital (reporting on Block’s argument and concessions)
- Meaww (reaction coverage)
- Ground News (analysis of media emphasis)
- AOL (legal analysis of justices’ questions)
Preserved original facts, information and source URLs.
