Second Circuit Nixes TV Coverage of Arguments on LGBT Rights

The bigoted Jeff Sessions who opposes GBT protections

While the Trump fueled furor over black pro-athletes exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech, the U.S. Court of Appeals is about to hear arguments on another circumstance that shows the promise of America is not currently available to all.  Specifically, the Court will ultimately decide whether or not LGBT citizens are protected from discrimination under existing federal laws.  The case arises out of the firing of an employee due to his sexual orientation. Der Trumpenführer's Department of Justice has intervened in the case to argue against a finding in favor of LGBT employees.  On the opposing side of the case is the EEOC which argues that existing laws do provide non-discrimination protections. Trump, of course, is motivated by his promises to the leaders of many of the most vociferous anti-LGBT hate groups who rallied the modern day Pharisee evangelical followers to vote for Trump. Politico looks at the stakes at hand which one way or another will likely see the case go to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Here are excerpts:

Appeals court arguments on LGBT rights Tuesday will take place without video coverage after a judge objected to C-SPAN's request to televise the rare session, a court official said.

The full 13-judge bench of the New York-based 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is set to hear an hour of oral arguments Tuesday afternoon on a case raising the issue of whether existing federal law prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The case, involving a deceased New York skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired from a skydiving company because he was gay, has drawn unusual attention because different parts of the federal government are taking conflicting positions.

Interest in the 2nd Circuit case has also been piqued by the rarity with which the court grants en banc review. . . . . The 2nd Circuit is considered the stingiest court when it comes to having the full bench rehear a case already decided by a three-judge panel.

The clerk added that audio of the argument will be made public after the session. However, figuring out which of the 13 judges is questioning a lawyer or engaging with a colleague can be challenging from audio alone.

In June, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission weighed in for Zarda's estate, arguing that existing federal law against sex discrimination offers protection against being fired for being gay. In July, the Trump administration weighed in via the Justice Department, contending that Congress has had dozens of chances to make such protection explicit and has never done so.

For decades, courts have ruled that firing or discriminating against employees because they're gay or lesbian does not violate federal law.

However, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue and in recent years, some judges have shown a willingness to reconsider that stance.

In April, the full bench of the Chicago-based U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals voted, 8-3, to overrule that court's prior precedents and hold that there are protections for LGBT status in federal law. Five of the judges who joined in the groundbreaking majority opinion were Republican appointees.