The SCOTUS said in the ruling:
“We need not decide whether the HHS mandate is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. Even if we assume it is, the mandate flunks the least-restrictive-means test. (Pp. 38-40.)”
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/381545/hobby-lobby-ruling-ed-whelan
From the ruling:
“We find it unnecessary to adjudicate this issue. We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA, and we will proceed to consider the final prong of the RFRA test, i.e., whether HHS has shown that the contraceptive mandate is “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling govern-mental interest.” - Page 40
Yes, that’s correct, which is why I said “may uphold.” I don’t think it will be long before the gov’t attempts to demonstrate the least restrictive means. That was really my point. I intended to say so, but I accidentally hit post (from my cell phone) when I was emphasizing some text.