The 2nd Circuit Court rejected C-SPAN's request to film a case testing the Civil Rights Act of 1964's applicability to anti-gay bias.

No TV Cameras Allowed In LGBT Anti-Discrimination Case That Could Head To Supreme Court

An appeals court has denied C-SPAN’s request to televise a rare full session of the 13-bench 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals today, in a case involving whether federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“The media policy says that if a member of the panel makes the request” video recording will not be permitted, 2nd Circuit Clerk Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe told Politico. “A request was made in this case.”

Audio of opening arguments will be made public, but as Politico points out, figuring out which of the 13 judges is speaking at a given time will be difficult.

The case has major significance for the LGBT community: Before his death in 2014, skydiving instructor Donald Zarda claimed his employer, Altitude Express, violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it fired him after he told a client he was gay.

Zarda lost his case, but his family is filing an appeal.

Debate over the scope of Title VII has played out in federal courts for years: While several LGBT discrimination suits have failed to sway judges, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission holds that Title VII does indeed apply to sexual orientation.

The EEOC is supporting Zarda, while the Justice Department is not—it filed an amicus brief earlier this year, arguing that the act wasn’t applicable.

Getty Images

“The essential element of sex discrimination under Title VII is that employees of one sex must be treated worse than similarly situated employees of the other sex,” it read. “Sexual orientation discrimination simply does not have that effect.”

It’s unusual for the Justice Department to weigh in on private employment lawsuits, but if Zarda’s estate wins it would set a precedent going forward and could potential take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

It’s also quite rare for the the 2nd Circuit to grant en banc reviews after a case has been decided by a three-judge panel. The last instance was in 2015, in a case involving computer searches.

The 2nd Circuit Court has generally allowed live video, except in criminal cases, since 1996.

“I’m disappointed the Second Circuit will not be allowing video coverage for Zarda despite permitting cameras in the past and in spite of the heightened public interest in the case,” Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth told Politico. “As we’re days away from the start of a new Supreme Court term comprising cases with broad public interest… I’m hoping the Second Circuit’s pullback is not a sign of a new trend.”