Early life and education
Proto was born in New Haven, Connecticut, to Matthew and Celeste Proto. Both parents were active in New Haven's civic and political life. His mother emigrated from Italy in 1916. He attended New Haven's public schools. Proto's sister, Diana (1947—), was a Milken National Educator. [1] [2] His brother, Richard Proto, (1940–2008), was director of research in the U.S. National Security Agency. In 2009, a conference center was named in his honor on the NSA campus in Fort Meade, Maryland. [3] [4]
Proto graduated from Southern Connecticut State University in 1967, where he served as student body president and received the university's outstanding leadership award. He was among the early recipients of college funding from the New Haven Scholarship Fund. [5] He received his Master of Arts degree in International Affairs from The George Washington University (GWU) in 1969. From April to June 6, 1968, he served as chair of Young Citizens for Kennedy in Connecticut; then he worked with others to collect signatures for hand gun control. [6] He graduated, with honors, from GWU's law school in 1972. While there, he organized and chaired Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP). [7] His first book, To A High Court, [8] captured the activist imperative and rough corporate culture that surrounded and tempered him and led to United States of America v. SCRAP, 412 US 669 (1973). [9] It was the first Supreme Court case to deal with the National Environmental Policy Act and "standing to sue" under the Constitution. The decision has proven an acknowledged and enduring bane to Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. [10] [11] [12] He also donated various documents, photographs, and memorabilia from the 1968–1972 era to the university's Gelman Library. [13] In March 2014, Proto was interviewed for an exhibition and symposium planned for fall 2014 on GW's central place in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations.
Public service, private practice, teaching, and civic life
While at the Justice Department (Appellate Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division), Proto litigated cases concerning public lands, environment, and Native Americans. He received the Department's Special Commendation Award for Outstanding Service and the Division's Award for Meritorious Service. [14] In 1979, Proto returned to New Haven. In January 1980, he served as co-chair of the first Mayoral inauguration held at Yale University. The inauguration, held in Woolsey Hall, included the president of Yale, A. Bartlett Giamatti, and Connecticut Governor Ella T. Grasso. Proto wrote about the event in his book about Giamatti, Fearless: A. Bartlett Giamatti and the Battle for Fairness in America. [15] He has also written about Giamatti and Pete Rose. [16] [17] [18] Proto was elected to the board of directors of the Long Wharf Theater, and served on the board of directors of the Shubert Theatre (New Haven). In 1981, Proto received the Distinguished Alumnus Award from Southern Connecticut State University. He had given the Commencement Address in 1976.
In 1981, Proto returned to Washington, D.C., where he served as general counsel to President Jimmy Carter's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee (NSOC). [19] Proto also has written about the corporate and government failure to ensure nuclear safety. [20]
From 1983 to 1989, Proto entered private practice in New Haven. He represented the city and state in various constitutional and environmental litigation in Washington, D.C.; Connecticut; and New York. [21] Proto was appointed a visiting lecturer at Yale College in 1988 and 1989, where he taught the history and law of nuclear power.
Proto returned to Washington, D.C., to join Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand and begin teaching at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute (now the McCourt School of Public Policy). [22] He represented, pro bono, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Protect Historic America (involving such authors as David McCullough, James Alan McPherson, and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nick Kotz) in their successful effort to stop Disney from building a theme park in Virginia. [23] He drafted a unique statutory scheme at the behest of the State of Hawaii that resulted in the conveyance of Kaho'olawe Island from the United States to Hawaii for the special use of Native Hawaiians. [24] His work led, in part, to the publication of his second book, The Rights of My People: Liliuokalani's Enduring Battle with the United States, 1898 to 1917. [25] The book explored the skilled and courageous efforts of former Queen Liliuokalani on the continental United States to regain one million acres of land taken in the 1898 annexation by the United States. Proto also focused on the disquieting role played by lawyers. In December 2013, he donated the Rights of My People papers to the University of Hawaii Law School. [26]
In 2002, Proto became a partner at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis. [27] In 2004, he was elected to the board of directors of the Roosevelt Institute for a three-year term. In the summer of 2004, he served as counsel to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) in her capacity as chair of the Democratic Party Platform Drafting Committee. He served as chair (1995–2010) of the American Friends of Wilton Park, a British-American educational organization with origins in World War II. In 2010, he served as a senior adviser to the United States Naval Academy's Foreign Affairs Conference on "National Security Beyond the Horizon: Changing Threats in a Changing World." Later that year, he was elected a Fellow in the Royal Geographical Society.
Selected writings
Proto's articles have been published in various newspapers, magazines, and journals. From 1997 to 2002, Proto undertook an examination of the lives of Bartolomeo Vanzetti and Nicola Sacco and the cultural and legal setting for their 1921 trial and 1927 execution. In 2002, with the support of Mayor John DeStefano, Jr., and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, Proto served as chair of New Haven's year-long commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the execution. Proto also co-adapted from the original Dutch (with director Tony Giordano) the musical drama, "The American Dream: The Story of Sacco and Vanzetti." It was performed at the Shubert Theatre (New Haven) in 2002. In the preface to Sacco and Vanzetti, which encompasses the history and persons involved in this almost seven-year inquiry and literary effort, Proto wrote the following: "This body of work has reflected my intention to encourage a colloquy about the meaning and effects among Italian immigrants and Italian Americans of the fight for the lives of Bartolomeo Vanzetti and Nicola Sacco. It was not a lonely journey. From the outset, numerous people engaged thoughtfully and, at times, provocatively in such a colloquy…. Raw, often dormant, experiences and recollections emerged with a comfort not previously allowed or accepted. Memories among the elderly had been seared by the lives of Vanzetti and Sacco." His recent writings include a work of short fiction, Absent in Body, Present in Spirit, [28] as well as works on his adventurous exploits with friends in the Northwest [29] and book reviews on Louis Brandeis and T. E. Lawrence. [30] In 2016, Proto's one-person play on the 1933 U.S. Senate hearings into the causes of the 1929 stock market crash, The Reckoning, Pecora for the Public, premiered in Seattle. A reviewer said: "Possibly it is the best solo play ever written." [31] Proto's most recent book, Fearless: A. Bartlett Giamatti and the Battle for Fairness in America, explores the early years of the Italian American professor of Renaissance literature who would later become Yale's first non-Anglo-Saxon president and the commissioner of Major League Baseball. [32] The book received the 2020 bronze award in the Biography category of the Foreword Reviews INDIES Book of the Year Awards. [33]
Angelo Bartlett “Bart” Giamatti was an American professor of English Renaissance literature, the president of Yale University, and the seventh Commissioner of Major League Baseball.
The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) is a non-profit legal organization located at 2007-2009 Massachusetts Avenue NW, on Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1977, the Foundation's stated goal is "to defend and promote the principles of freedom and justice." The organization promotes pro-business and free-market positions and is widely perceived as conservative.
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the members of SCRAP—five law students from the George Washington University Law School—had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). SCRAP was the first full-court consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court also reversed the lower court decision that an injunction should be issued at the suspension stage of the ICC rate proceeding. The standing decision has retained its place as the high mark in the Court's standing jurisprudence.
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court spelled out standards for "effectiveness" in the constitutional right to legal counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Previously the court had determined that the Sixth Amendment included the right to "effective assistance" of legal counsel, but it did not specify what constitutes "effective", thus leaving the standards for effectiveness vague. In Wiggins v. Smith, the court set forth the American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases Guideline 11.8.6.(1989), as a specific guideline by which to measure effectiveness and competence of legal counsel.
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Connecticut sex offender registration requirement which required public disclosure of information on sex offenders after they had been released from incarceration.
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a prosecutor may dismiss jurors who are bilingual in Spanish and English from juries that will consider Spanish-language testimony.
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700, is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in which the court appeared to overrule or drastically limit many years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirming the patent exhaustion doctrine, for example in Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell.
United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a patentee who has granted a single license to a competitor to manufacture the patented product may lawfully fix the price at which the licensee may sell the product.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) was a nonprofit organization active in the United States from 2009 through 2015. The organization was established to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.
United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on paid petition circulation. Colorado was one of several states with a process for citizens to propose initiatives for the ballot, which if passed became law. One of the requirements was to get the signatures of a significant number of registered Colorado electors. Colorado prohibited initiative sponsors from paying for the circulation of these petitions. The state argued this was necessary to "protect[...] the integrity of the initiative."
The ministerial exception, sometimes known as the "ecclesiastical exception," is a legal doctrine in the United States barring the application of anti-discrimination laws to religious institutions' employment relationships with its "ministers." As explained by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2012 case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., the exception is drawn from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and seeks to both (1) safeguard religious groups' "freedom. .. to select their own ministers," a principle rooted in the Free Exercise Clause, and (2) prevent "government involvement in [] ecclesiastical decisions," a prohibition stemming from the Establishment Clause. When applied, the exception operates to give religious institutions an affirmative defense when sued for discrimination by employees who qualify as "ministers;" for example, female priests cannot sue the Catholic church to force their hiring. However, exactly which types of employees should qualify as a "ministers," and thus how broadly the exception should apply, was the subject of recent litigation before the Supreme Court.
Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Washington's imposition of partial jurisdiction over certain actions on an Indian reservation, when not requested by the tribe, was valid under Public Law 280.
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Harris was the first Supreme Court case to challenge the dog's reliability, backed by data that asserts that on average, up to 80% of a dog's alerts are wrong. Twenty-four U.S. States, the federal government, and two U.S. territories filed briefs in support of Florida as amici curiae.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case.
Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.
Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a final judgment in an infringement suit against a first defendant that a patent is invalid bars the patentee from relitigating the same patent against other defendants. In so ruling, the Supreme Court overruled its 1936 decision in Triplett v. Lowell, which had required mutuality of estoppel to bar such preclusion, and held that the better view was to prevent relitigating if the plaintiff had had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question.
State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, was a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, issued by U.S. president Donald Trump.
Frank v. Gaos, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a per curiam decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case concerning the practice of cy pres settlements in class action lawsuits. Following oral argument, the court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the parties had Article III standing to pursue the case in federal courts. Supplemental briefing was completed on December 21, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Native American country.
