I guarantee it is struck down. The government's arguments were pathetic, touching on political and public policy concerns rather than dealing with their oppositions strongest legal arguments.

A very simple application of Religious Freedom Restoration Act and by no means can we call this regulatory mandate the least restrictive means.

Of course it is logical and perfectly fine to disagree with the RFRA and prefer Smith, but that is not what this case is about. Under current law, the outcome is clear.