Mace slams ACLU attorney for refusing to define “sex” at Supreme Court hearing on trans athletes
At a heated Jan. 13, 2026 Supreme Court hearing in West Virginia v. B.P.J., ACLU attorney Joshua Block declined to define “sex,” drawing criticism from Rep. Nancy Mace and prompting debate over Title IX’s meaning for transgender athletes.
Key takeaways
- Joshua Block told justices he did not think Title IX required an “accurate definition” of sex, a stance that drew sharp criticism during oral argument.
- Rep. Nancy Mace posted video of Block avoiding a reporter’s question and said the ACLU lacked credibility on sex-discrimination issues.
- Opposing counsel John Bursch of the Alliance Defending Freedom called Block’s refusal “completely bizarre” in a case hinging on the meaning of sex under Title IX.
- Coverage sampled leaned right-leaning and did not prominently feature an ACLU response in the outlets reviewed.
What happened at the Supreme Court hearing
West Virginia v. B.P.J. asked the Supreme Court to decide whether a West Virginia law that bars transgender girls from competing on girls’ school sports teams violates federal law. During oral argument, ACLU attorney Joshua Block was pressed on what “sex” means for Title IX and the Constitution.
Block told justices that defining “sex” was not necessary to resolve the dispute, saying, “I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex.” Reporting from the hearing noted Chief Justice John Roberts responded that the phrase “on the basis of sex” in Title IX “must mean something,” and other justices emphasized the practical stakes for school sports programs. For hearing coverage, see reporting from the hearing.
Block’s remarks and position
Block suggested that the concept of sex can encompass circumstances beyond strict biological categories, citing examples such as discrimination against men perceived as feminine. He acknowledged biological differences can be relevant in sports but questioned whether an exact legal definition was required for the Court’s decision. Press accounts report that Block offered a narrower concession for purposes of the case: “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.” (See hearing accounts.)
Immediate reactions and political response
Republican Rep. Nancy Mace shared video on X of Block being asked by a reporter to define sex and walking away, writing that if the ACLU “can’t even define what sex is, they have no credibility lecturing anyone about sex discrimination.” See Mace’s post and coverage at Fox News and related reporting at MEAWW.
John Bursch, counsel for West Virginia and intervening female athletes: “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… completely bizarre.”
Reporters also noted that after the hearing a Fox News reporter sought a definition from Block on camera; Block declined to answer and walked away. Several articles covering the exchange were from right-leaning outlets; the ACLU’s public response was not prominent in the pieces reviewed (Ground News roundup).
Legal context: Title IX and the question of definition
At issue is Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination “on the basis of sex” in federally funded education programs. The Court will decide whether states may bar transgender girls—individuals assigned male at birth who identify as female—from girls’ sports teams and how Title IX and equal protection doctrine apply to eligibility rules.
Justices pressed lawyers on practical effects for sports, including team cuts and roster limits. Justice Neil Gorsuch observed many team sports have selections that could be affected by a ruling, underscoring the potential nationwide impact on how schools apply Title IX in athletics.
Media landscape and reporting gaps
The coverage sampled for this article was dominated by right-leaning outlets emphasizing Block’s refusal to offer a simple on-camera definition and highlighting conservative political reactions. Multiple outlets noted a lack of a clear ACLU statement in those accounts; other outlets concentrated more on legal arguments and possible Title IX implications (AOL analysis).
Implications for Las Vegas, Nevada
Economic impact
- High schools and clubs could face legal uncertainty, policy changes, training costs, or litigation expenses—significant for large districts like Clark County.
- Colleges such as UNLV and other local programs might see changes to pipelines and recruiting for women’s teams if eligibility rules shift.
Political consequences
- State and local policymakers may be pressured to clarify athletic policies; the issue could surface in school board and legislative campaigns.
- Nevada’s congressional delegation could face demands to take positions if the ruling produces a national policy change.
Social effects
- Student-athletes and families may encounter reclassification processes, disputes over team placement, or administrative changes.
- Transgender students’ access and inclusion in school life could be directly affected by the Court’s decision.
Cultural relevance
Sports are central to many Nevada communities; high school teams are community fixtures. A ruling that affects who can compete on girls’ teams would touch local traditions and be debated in the context of Las Vegas’ diverse, urban identity.
Practical applications for Las Vegas residents
- School districts may update athletic eligibility rules, tryout procedures and training materials for coaches and administrators.
- Parents and students should monitor announcements from the Clark County School District and local athletic departments.
- Local legal clinics and advocacy groups may increase outreach to inform families of rights and processes if disputes arise.
Sources and further reading
- Fox News – Nancy Mace coverage
- Fox News – hearing analysis
- MEAWW coverage
- Ground News roundup
- AOL – broader implications
Reporting note: Coverage used for this article was drawn primarily from the sources listed above. ACLU statements responding directly to the specific post-hearing exchanges were not prominent in those reports.
