ACLU attorney declines to define “sex” at SCOTUS; Nancy Mace posts video slamming his response in West Virginia v. B.P.J.
WASHINGTON (High Desert News Online) – At the Jan. 13, 2026 Supreme Court hearing in West Virginia v. B.P.J., ACLU attorney Joshua Block declined to provide a single definition of “sex,” prompting Rep. Nancy Mace’s public rebuke and renewed debate over Title IX’s scope and enforcement.
Key takeaways
- Joshua Block resisted a fixed legal definition of “sex” at oral argument, arguing Title IX’s purpose can address multiple forms of sex-based discrimination (Fox News: Trans athletes’ attorney suggests sex should not be defined).
- Rep. Nancy Mace publicly criticized Block, posting video on X of a post‑hearing exchange and saying the ACLU lacks credibility if it will not define “sex” (Fox News: Nancy Mace rips trans athletes’ attorney; MEAWW: Nancy Mace rips trans athletes’ lawyer).
- The deliberation underscores a broader legal and policy fight over whether Title IX is limited to biological sex or extends to gender identity, amid about 27 states regulating transgender athletes (AOL: Even conservatives say justices seem torn).
What happened at the hearing
West Virginia v. B.P.J. challenges a West Virginia law that bars transgender girls from competing on girls’ sports teams. The ACLU, representing Becky Pepper‑Jackson, argued the statute violates Title IX and constitutional protections. During oral argument, ACLU attorney Joshua Block urged the justices not to lock Title IX to a single definition of “sex,” saying the statute can reach varied forms of sex‑based discrimination beyond strictly biological categories (Fox News: Trans athletes’ attorney suggests sex should not be defined).
Justices push back
Chief Justice John Roberts and other justices pressed that Title IX “prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex” and that the statutory term must have a legal meaning to guide courts and implementers. Roberts emphasized that a statute’s operative words generally require a working definition in litigation (Fox News).
Block’s statements and later concession
Block argued “sex” can carry broader connotations, including discrimination against people who present or act in a feminine manner while being male, and cautioned against reducing Title IX to only biological traits. For the narrower disposition in this case, however, he offered a concession:
“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.”
That narrowing shifted the immediate dispute back toward biology for purposes of the parties’ claims (Fox News).
Nancy Mace’s response and video post
Rep. Nancy Mace posted footage on X showing Block avoiding a clear verbal definition when a reporter asked him after the hearing. Mace wrote that if the ACLU “can’t even define what sex is, they have no credibility lecturing anyone about sex discrimination,” a message widely shared on conservative platforms that added a political spotlight to the legal exchange (Fox News; MEAWW).
Defense team reaction
John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom, representing West Virginia and the female athletes, called Block’s reluctance to define “sex” “completely bizarre,” asking how courts can interpret Title IX or equal protection without establishing the term’s meaning. Bursch argued that Title IX’s enactment contemplated biological distinctions, and courts need a workable rule for athletics and related programs (Fox News).
Media coverage and the missing ACLU reply
Much of the captured coverage of the exchange has come from right‑leaning outlets, which framed Block’s comments as a credibility issue for the ACLU. Monitoring services and aggregators noted limited neutral or left‑leaning reporting on the exchange and no immediate public ACLU response in the pieces reviewed; readers should weigh outlet perspectives when assessing the exchange and legal arguments (Ground News; Fox News).
Legal context: Title IX and the national landscape
The dispute arises amid a wave of state laws and policies restricting transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ sports. Roughly 27 states have enacted measures or policies on the issue, creating a patchwork of litigation that has reached federal courts and now the Supreme Court. Central to the high court’s question is whether Title IX—enacted in 1972 to prohibit sex‑based discrimination in federally funded education—protects gender‑identity claims or should be read to refer to biological sex, with outcomes that could affect school rules, college athletics, and federal enforcement priorities (AOL).
Implications for The High Desert, California
Economic impact
School budgets and legal costs: If the Court sides with West Virginia, local districts in the High Desert (Victor Valley, Apple Valley, Hesperia and nearby communities) may need to revise athletic eligibility rules, prompting legal challenges and associated costs that could divert funds from programming to litigation or policy updates.
College recruiting and competition: Changes in eligibility rules could shift competitive balance, potentially affecting scholarships and local sports economies tied to tournaments, camps and recruiting exposure.
Political consequences
School board and local elections could become flashpoints as candidates are asked to clarify district approaches to Title IX and transgender participation. State and county officials may face pressure to adopt or clarify policies; California law currently trends more inclusive on gender identity, but local implementation could become contested.
Social effects
Community debate is likely to intensify, with parents, coaches and students attending public meetings and raising emotionally charged concerns about fairness and opportunity. School leaders must weigh competitive fairness alongside student wellbeing and safety.
Cultural relevance
High Desert communities place high value on youth sports—from Friday‑night football to track meets—and perceived threats to fairness in girls’ athletics can resonate strongly. Messaging that stresses both fairness for female athletes and dignity for transgender students may appeal to moderate conservative readers seeking practical solutions.
Practical applications for residents
- School districts: Communicate current rules and any legal‑driven changes clearly and promptly; prioritize official district statements over social posts.
- Coaches and athletic directors: Document eligibility decisions, adhere to written policies, and consult legal counsel when policy conflicts arise.
- Community members: Attend school board meetings, ask officials about policy planning, and encourage transparent, evidence‑based approaches that protect student‑athletes’ opportunities.
Sources and further reading
Fox News: “Trans athletes’ attorney suggests sex should not be defined during SCOTUS Title IX case”
Fox News: “Nancy Mace rips trans athletes’ attorney refusing to define sex at SCOTUS women’s sports hearing”
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: “Even conservatives say justices seem torn”
Reporting by High Desert News Online.
