A lower court applies Hobby Lobby in a principled manner:

Citing Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court’s decision last June holding that the religious objections of a business’ owners could trump federal rules requiring that business to include birth control coverage in its health plan, a federal judge in Utah held last week that a member of a polygamist religious sect could refuse to testify in a federal investigation into alleged violations of child labor laws because he objects to testifying on religious grounds.

Admittedly, the original was a “we reserve the right not to apply this principle in if it produces policy results we don’t like” Alito “minimalist” special, so who knows what will happen. But the burden in this case is much more substantial, and there seems to be a less restrictive means of achieving the state interest, so I’m not sure why the claim wouldn’t be valid. The Supreme Court just created a huge mess. (And, again, RFRA was a dumb law in the first place.)