Nancy Mace Slams ACLU Attorney for Refusing to Define “Sex” at Supreme Court Hearing on Transgender Athletes
During a Jan. 13, 2026 Supreme Court hearing in West Virginia v. B.P.J., Rep. Nancy Mace sharply criticized ACLU attorney Joshua Block after he repeatedly refused to define “sex,” a central issue in the Title IX transgender athletes dispute.
Key takeaways
- ACLU counsel declined to provide a fixed definition of “sex” during oral argument, drawing direct pushback from Chief Justice John Roberts and other justices.
- Rep. Nancy Mace publicly criticized the ACLU on social media after Block declined to define the term in a post-hearing exchange.
- The case could reshape Title IX interpretation and affect state and local athletic eligibility rules if the Court defines “sex” narrowly as biological sex.
- Local impacts in places like Hesperia, California, could include changes to school budgets, recruiting, political dynamics, and community debates over student-athlete participation.
What happened at the hearing
The Supreme Court hearing focused on whether states can bar transgender girls from girls’ sports under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Joshua Block, representing Becky Pepper-Jackson and the American Civil Liberties Union, urged the Court not to make a rigid biological definition of “sex” the sole determinant in Title IX analysis.
Block told the justices: “I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” arguing Title IX addresses a spectrum of sex- or gender-based harms rather than only discrete biological markers. Fox News: Trans athletes attorney suggests sex should not be defined during SCOTUS Title IX case
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back, noting Title IX forbids discrimination “on the basis of sex” and observing that a statutory term must carry meaning to enable a judicial ruling. Several justices pressed counsel on whether basic categories such as “boy or girl” or “man or woman” have legal significance in this context. Ground News: ACLU can’t define sex in transgender Supreme Court case
Block’s broader argument
Block argued that “sex” carries broader connotations than strictly biological markers and pointed to harms experienced by men who act feminine as examples of conduct that could fall under Title IX if the statute is read too narrowly. He acknowledged biological differences can matter in athletics but cautioned against treating biology as the exclusive touchstone for every Title IX dispute. Fox News: Trans athletes attorney suggests sex should not be defined during SCOTUS Title IX case
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex.” — Joshua Block (as reported)
Block also highlighted potential harms to transgender athletes if forced onto teams inconsistent with their gender identity and stressed that accommodations and outcomes vary by sport — for example, cross-country teams that do not cut members present different competitive dynamics than contact sports.
Post-hearing exchanges and public reaction
After the argument, reporters from conservative outlets pressed Joshua Block to define “sex” outside the courtroom. He declined to answer and walked away in a brief on-camera exchange. Fox News: Nancy Mace rips trans athlete’s lawyer for refusing to define sex at SCOTUS women’s sports hearing
Rep. Nancy Mace amplified the moment on social media, posting video of Block avoiding the question and writing: “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 has been widely circulated among conservative audiences.
John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom, counsel for West Virginia and the female athletes challenging Pepper-Jackson’s participation, called Block’s refusal to define sex “completely bizarre,” saying a definition is necessary to decide sex-based rights under Title IX and equal protection. Fox News: Nancy Mace rips trans athlete’s lawyer for refusing to define sex at SCOTUS women’s sports hearing
Reporting context and source notes
Most coverage of Block’s post-hearing remarks and the exchanges has appeared in conservative media, including Fox News and allied outlets; the reporting reviewed here did not cite a full official transcript of the oral argument nor a public ACLU response. Ground News: ACLU can’t define sex in transgender Supreme Court case
Why the definition of “sex” matters
The Court’s definition could determine whether states may bar transgender girls who were assigned male at birth from competing in girls’ sports. A narrow, biological interpretation would likely uphold state bans in many cases, while a broader interpretation could extend additional protections to transgender students and constrain state-level restrictions under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
Legal observers warn a ruling in this case could reshape Title IX enforcement, affect equal protection analysis in school athletics, and influence policy inside school districts nationwide.
Implications for Hesperia, California
A nationwide decision will likely reverberate locally in school districts, political campaigns, and community life.
Economic impact
A ruling allowing states to ban transgender girls from girls’ sports could affect local school budgets and college recruiting patterns. Hesperia-area high schools that send athletes to regional camps and showcases may see shifts in scholarship opportunities, roster management, and the competitive balance that influences attendance and community support.
Political consequences
San Bernardino County and Hesperia’s politically active conservative voters may use a high-profile ruling to mobilize around school board races, parental-rights campaigns, and proposed local or state measures concerning school athletics and participation rules.
Social effects
Families of female athletes may raise fairness and safety concerns, while families of transgender students may face altered access to teams and extracurricular life. Schools should expect heightened community input and possible protests or advocacy efforts from both sides.
Cultural relevance
Hesperia’s conservative-leaning communities value traditional ideas about sex and athletic fairness; the controversy — including the moment an ACLU attorney declined to define “sex” — may deepen local debates involving churches, booster clubs, and civic groups.
Practical applications for residents
- School districts such as Hesperia Unified School District may need to review and update athletic eligibility rules depending on the Court’s decision.
- Coaches and athletic directors might revise rosters or create new participation guidelines to comply with federal or state directives.
- Parents should watch for district communications about policy changes, tryouts, and eligibility deadlines that could affect student-athletes.
What local leaders can do
- Prepare clear, lawful policies that protect students while following federal guidance.
- Hold community meetings to hear concerns from parents, athletes, and coaches.
- Consider policy statements or local guidance that align with state law and district priorities while minimizing legal risk.
Sources
- Fox News: Nancy Mace rips trans athlete’s lawyer for refusing to define sex at SCOTUS women’s sports hearing
- Fox News: Trans athletes attorney suggests sex should not be defined during SCOTUS 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: Coverage noting justices’ skepticism and possible leanings in the case
