NPR's Justice Department coorespondent, Ari Shapiro (right of Attorney General Eric Holder) will begin covering the White House in the coming weeks (DOJ photo).

Ari Shapiro, the award-winning correspondent for National Public Radio who has covered the Department of Justice for five years, is moving up the media food chain. He’ll begin covering the White House in the coming weeks, focusing on national security and legal issues.

Since he began covering the Justice Department in 2005, Shapiro has broken several major DOJ stories in addition to covering broader legal issues and more recently filling in as host of NPR’s Morning Edition. He was the first NPR reporter to be made a correspondent before age 30, according to his biography on the NPR Web site. He also recently made his on-stage debut at the Hollywood Bowl, singing a song he recorded for the band Pink Martini’s latest album.

Main Justice interviewed Shapiro about his new job on Wednesday morning.

When do you start at the White House?

It’s going to be somewhere in the next few weeks, we don’t have a specific start date yet, partly because NPR is in the process of hiring a new Justice Department correspondent, and they may have me sort of straddle both beats for a little while while they go through that process. But there are two other White House correspondents, and so they have been on the beat for a very long time and do a masterful job at it so there isn’t the most urgent pressing need for me to get over there immediately, but it will be some time in the next few weeks.

What types of stories will you be covering?

Generally the way White House coverage works at NPR is that there is [...] sort of a three-week rotation, so one week you’re in the White House covering the daily breaking news and then two weeks you’re doing sort of more “big picture” stories. The other two White House correspondents are Mara Liasson and Scott Horsley. Mara primarily seems to focus on political issues, Scott has tended to focus on economic issues, and I think that NPR’s thought is that I will focus on national security and legal issues, so I may be reporting on many of the same kinds of things that I have covered at Justice but from the perspective of the White House instead of from DOJ.

Ari Shapiro (NPR photo).

As you look back at the stories you’ve covered, what stories are you most proud of and which were the most fun to cover?

Well the most fun is easy — going to Baghdad with Attorney General Michael Mukasey was an amazing experience. Donna Leinwand from USA Today and I went on the trip with him and it was just a whirlwind. By the time we finished our 12-hour stay in Baghdad and landed back in Doha [Qatar], nobody had slept in about three days.

I remember we were leaving the military base in Doha to go to the hotel that we were staying at and the Qatar soldiers would not let the convoy enter the country, would not let the convoy go through the check point to leave the military base and we were stalled there and I kept waiting for Attorney General Mukasey to get out of the SUV and storm up to the guards and say “Do you know who I am?” but he never did.

When we finally showed up at the hotel it must have been two or three in the morning and the Qatari attorney general and his entourage were there waiting to greet Attorney General Mukasey and of course all anybody wanted to do was go to sleep, but there was this reception there. Just the experience of being in the bubble of the Attorney General for 24 hours, and I think I spun out about four stories from that trip, was a great adventure.

In terms of other stories that I’ve done that I think have made a difference, I was proud of the story I did on Leslie Hagan, who was not renewed in her job because of a rumor that she was a lesbian. One of the things I’ve enjoyed about covering Justice was sort of getting out into the county and covering Justice as it relates to specific communities — going to Noxubee County, Miss. and covering the first ever case that alleged a violation of the Voting Rights Act by black elected officials against white voters was a great experience. Just recently going out to Suffolk County, Long Island, and covering a civil rights investigation there into whether local officials there have ignored hate crimes against Latinos in Suffolk County.

It has also been very interesting over the last five years to chart the way the federal government’s approach to terrorism has changed and sort of the way the federal government has figured out how to sort through these very complicated new problems and find the balance between the war model and the law enforcement model, and it’s obviously a debate that is continuing more than ever today. That has been very interesting to chart as court cases have made their way through the system and the Justice Department has changed its approach in response.

Specifically on the national security front, how have you seen that debate about the balance between law enforcement and war manifest itself? Has there been a shift in the new administration?

Just this week there was a New Yorker story in which Brad Berenson, who was in the White House counsel’s staff in the Bush administration, was quoted as saying from his perspective, on the national security front, the glass was 85 percent full, or something to that effect, he said basically things are 85 percent the same as they were during the Bush administration. I don’t know that I would put a specific percentage on it, but I think many people have said before, and I certainly appreciate their point of view, that it is in President Obama’s interest, and Vice President Dick Cheney’s interest, to portray a greater difference in national security policies between the last administration than in fact there actually is. Certainly, the language used to describe counter-terrorism efforts has changed dramatically. I think that although there have been changes in the policies, those policy changes have not been as dramatic as the language has.

So will you just dive in head first? How do you get a grasp on the broad range of issues the White House beat deals with?

I was just thinking last night about how five years ago when I started this beat, there was so much about the Justice Department that I didn’t know, from the names of officials to acronyms. I can remember doing interviews when I started covering Justice that I would say to the person I was interviewing, ‘Now, most NPR listeners are not familiar with the term habeas corpus, so why don’t you define it for them,’ of course, not knowing myself what habeas corpus meant.

As I start on this White House beat, I think there’s going to be this same kind of learning curve. I was just thinking last night about all the structural things of the White House and learning the names of officials and the things that I’ll have to learn, but I think that’s one of the reasons this is the right choice, having covered Justice for five years, it’s a fantastic experience and I love the beat, but I feel like a good time to try something new.

How do you prepare for your new role? Have you set up your Google Alerts yet?

I actually need to ask for our reference librarian’s help in structuring the right Google Alert, because if I put the Google Alert for Barack Obama, I’m going to get such a tremendous amount of information it’ll be useless. With a Google Alert for Eric Holder, it’s a little bit more digestible, but I’ll have to structure the new ones for the White House beat. But it’s true that I’m going to be relying really heavily upon some of the contacts and sources that I’ve developed over the past five years in starting on this new beat and to a certain extent it’s going to be like drinking from a fire hydrant and I expect that for the first six months to a year, I will be struggling to keep up, and that’s exciting to me.

When I started as a reporter, I felt like there was a long list of mistakes I had to make once in order to make sure that I wouldn’t make them again and then about a year ago when I started filling in as a guest host, there was a whole new list of things that could go wrong, most of which I have now done at least once, and hopefully that means that I will not do them again. So I’m sure that now that I’m starting on a whole new beat at the White House, I’ll have a whole new list of things that could go wrong and mistakes that I might make, and it’s just a matter of hanging in there, forging through them until I’ve sort of exhausted that list and feel comfortable in the routine.

What will you miss most about covering the Justice Department beat?

You know I remember during the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, there were countless hearings into the firings, and at almost every one of those hearings, somebody, whether it was a witness, or a congressman or a senator, would talk about how people who work at the Department of Justice feel a devotion to the Department and a passion for the Department’s mission that other federal government employees don’t feel, and I can’t speak to what other federal government employees do or don’t feel because I’ve never covered another federal department, but I have always been impressed by the way the people at the Department of Justice consider their work to be much more than a job. From national security to civil rights to environment to antitrust, across the board, people at DOJ feel a real devotion to the mission of the Department. John Ashcroft used to say the Department of Justice is the only Department with a value in its name, and there’s really something to that that I will miss.

Do you think there’s a lot more of a political aspect to covering the White House than there is to covering the Justice Department? Obviously at the White House sort of everything is political where at DOJ there’s supposed to be more of a divider line — in just enforcing the law as it’s written, where not everything is thought of politically, sort of what we’re seeing with the handling of the KSM trial.

“Yeah, well one of the major themes of the past five years has been the extent to which politics has or has not improperly affected the decision-making at the Department of Justice. There have been amazing Inspector General reports and hearings about that and I would say that was one of the major themes of the past five years. At the White House, there is a completely different standard as to which politics can influence decision making and that’s going to be a real difference.”

The Civil Rights Division has intervened in the case of a gay teen being harassed by his classmates (file photo by Ryan J. Reilly / Main Justice).

The Obama administration has intervened in a court case on behalf of a gay teenager by using a novel but not unprecedented interpretation of a law intended to ban gender discrimination.

For the first time since President Bill Clinton was in office, the Justice Department is arguing that the protections against sex discrimination laid out in the Title IX, a 1972 education law, apply to gender identity as well.

The documents were filed in the Northern District of New York in connection with a private lawsuit against a school district where a student was allegedly harassed because he is effeminate. The government said it had “authority to intervene to seek relief from denials of equal protection if the matter is certified as a matter of general public importance,” as certified by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.

The student was teased and harassed by his classmates because he was had feminine characteristics, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that school authorities did not do enough to intervene.

Title IX declares that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Critics said the Civil Rights Division’s interpretation in this case goes beyond the gender discrimination language of Title IX.

“The school has a duty to keep students safe when they’re at school,” said Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity, calling the allegations of assaults troubling although he was not aware of the particular facts of the case. “That said, there’s a problem with DOJ’s interpretation of Title IX. I’m very skeptical about the argument,” Clegg told Main Justice.

Clegg said courts have rejected the argument that laws banning discrimination based on gender also ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Gay rights leaders, however, welcomed the government’s intervention.

“It’s a significant and welcomed returned presence by the Department of Justice to these issues,” Hayley Gorenberg of Lambda Legal told Main Justice. “There were before the Bush administration committees as well as individuals who had done significant work aimed towards the protection of LGBT people and their civil rights, and for years that has just laid fallow, and those efforts have been dormant. It is really exciting to see them come back to life, and this is an example.”

Gorenberg disagreed withe Clegg, saying that “there are strong interpretations of Title IX and other laws that prohibit sex discrimination that can be used to protect gay students.”

Such laws are “validly and powerfully read when there is evidence that discrimination against LGBT people is based on sex stereotyping and gender roles. We lack federal law specifically defending civil rights, so the protections need to be strong need to be put into place.”

Perez has testified in favor of the Employment Non Discrimination Act, which would outlaw employers from firing based on their employees sexual identity. He has also promised to fully enforce the recently passed hate crimes law which protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people from bias motivated crimes. Gay Justice Department employees say they have seen progress and an “improved working relationship with this administration.”

The first time Title IX was used on behalf of a harassed gay individual came in 1998, when the Civil Rights Division reached a settlement with Fayetteville Public Schools in Arkansas. In 2007, a federal district court in Indiana ruled that a school can be liable under Title IX for its indifference to bullying of gay students. The court interpreted Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination to include discrimination against individuals because of their failure to conform to sex stereotypes.

Court documents filed this week say the Justice Department is intervening in the case because of violations of Title IX as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, one count of negligent supervision, and violations of several provisions of New York human rights laws.

The teen, identified as “J.L.” in court documents filed by his father, Robert Sullivan, allege that the principal of Gregory B. Jarvis Jr./Sr. High School and the official charged with enforcing Title IX in the Mohawk Central School District in New York were indifferent to his harassment.

“J.L. is a fourteen year old male whose gender expression does not conform to male stereotypes. J.L. dyes his hair, wears make-up and nail polish, and engages in physical expressions that are stereotypically female, e.g., swinging his hips and singing in a high pitched voice,” according to court documents.

The complaint alleges that when J.L. was in seventh grade, students at the school subjected him to verbal sex-based harassment on a regular basis. His father complained multiple times to the school, but “the district failed to investigate, or conducted incomplete investigations of the allegations,” according to court documents.

Gorenberg said her group had been in serious, detailed discussions with the Civil Rights Division, and they are hopeful there will be action taken to support LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights.

Civil Rights Division spokesperson Alejandro Miyar declined to comment.

Assistant U.S. Attorney William F. Larkin in New York worked on the case, as did lawyers Amy I. Berman, Whitney M. Pellegrino and Amanda M. Downs of the Educational Opportunities Section in the Civil Rights Division.

The government’s intervention in this case was first reported by Ari Shapiro, whose NPR story will be available online Friday evening.

Court documents from the case are embedded below.

Mohawk Memoradum of Law

Mohawk Complaint

Laurie Robinson (photo by Ryan J. Reilly / Main Justice).

NPR’s Ari Shapiro interviewed newly installed Assistant Attorney General for Justice Programs Laurie Robinson about the process of awarding grants in the Obama administration. He asked her whether —  as critics charged happened during the Bush administration — she could theoretically funnel money to her favorite charity.

“Do I have the ability by law? Yes, I do. Would I do that? No, I would not,” said Robinson.

Here’s a selection from the interview below, read or listen to the whole thing at NPR.

SHAPIRO: That raises another question which is I can see where the money has gone. Can I see, for example, whether those organizations were highly rated within peer-review process?

Ms. ROBINSON: Oh, we don’t make the peer review ratings public. And one of the reasons is – I used to teach – it would be like posting all of the grades of all of the students. You know, these were all professionals in their field. Then it might be – in fact, it would be, as somebody who used to write grants, pretty embarrassing for people. Oh gosh, you know, hey, Joe you have got a pretty lousy grant application.

SHAPIRO: That makes sense. But at the same time, if somebody undeserving then is getting government money through favoritism or some other avenue, the transparency seems to stop short of somebody on the outside being able to see that this person receiving the grant money actually was not highly rated within the peer-review process.

Ms. ROBINSON: We’ve gone back and forth on that, but I think there are limits to how open one can be about this without having some pretty unfavorable results for individuals.

[...]

SHAPIRO: What have you told to people who are below you in the hierarchy to ensure that your ethos of just because I can award a million dollars to my charity doesn’t mean that it’s ethical for me to do so, to be sure that, that ethos pervades all the way down to the ranks? What have you told people?

Ms. ROBINSON: I’ve really laid down the law about the importance of competing grants so that we ensure that people who are interested in applying for grants from the Department of Justice all have an equal chance.

It has become clear that enhanced interrogation techniques were used on Abu Zubaydah before the first legal memos authorizing their use had been written by the Office of Legal Counsel.  Zubaydah entered U.S. custody on March 28, 2002.  The Justice Department issued its first memo on torture on Aug. 1, over 4 months later.

In April and May, which fall between the capture of Zubaydah and the Bybee memo, “contractors had to keep requesting authorization to use harsher and harsher methods.”  That quote is from former FBI agent Ali Soufan’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary administrative oversight and the courts subcommittee last week.  Soufan testified that many of the techniques authorized by the Bybee memo were used during this period, including nudity, sleep deprivation, loud noise and extreme temperatures during interrogations.

Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff received an e-mail last month from a CIA spokesperson saying that:

The Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Department of Justice wasn’t the first piece of legal guidance for the [interrogation] program.

So where was the CIA getting this legal guidance?

Well, Ari Shapiro at NPR reports that:

One source with knowledge of Zubaydah’s interrogations agreed to describe the legal guidance process, on the condition of anonymity.

The source says nearly every day, [psychologist James] Mitchell [the aforementioned CIA contractor] would sit at his computer and write a top-secret cable to the CIA’s counterterrorism center. Each day, Mitchell would request permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques on Zubaydah. The source says the CIA would then forward the request to the White House, where White House counsel Alberto Gonzales would sign off on the technique. That would provide the administration’s legal blessing for Mitchell to increase the pressure on Zubaydah in the next interrogation.

A new document is consistent with the source’s account.

The CIA sent the ACLU a spreadsheet late Tuesday as part of a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The log shows the number of top-secret cables that went from Zubaydah’s black site prison to CIA headquarters each day. Through the spring and summer of 2002, the log shows, someone sent headquarters several cables a day.

“At the very least, it’s clear that CIA headquarters was choreographing what was going on at the black site,” says Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer who sued to get the document. “But there’s still this question about the relationship between CIA headquarters and the White House and the Justice Department and the question of which senior officials were driving this process.”

Gonzales did not respond to a request for comment through his lawyer.

It’s important to note that Gonzales was not Attorney General at this time, he was White House counsel to President George W. Bush.

You can watch Shapiro’s interview on The Rachel Maddow Show last night below: