The NYT flubs the Newland case

As my friend Mark Movsesian points out, at the CLR Forum, sometimes it's important for those who criticize a judicial ruling to, well, read the ruling.  Like many these days, the NYT editorial writers seem to have become big fans of the Supreme Court's Smith decision (and, by implication, critics of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act), as they write:   "There is no constitutional precedent for individuals, much less corporations, allowing them to violate generally applicable laws because they may have a religious objection."  Well, certainly there are such precedents, though their relevance is limited after Smith.  And, in other contexts, I am confident that the NYT thought better of them, and their judicial authors.  But, now the conflict is about contraception, and pits many Catholic institutions against the Obama administration, and so the Gray Lady's views . . . evolve.