No. This ruling doesn’t say you can walk through the backyard. If you can jump over it without touching the privately owned ground, it’s applicable.

Based on this ruling and the cited prior case law I would not want to take that to court. It's fairly clear that the govt will uphold public access to public land, with a fallback of eminent domain (seizure for fair compensation) of private land in order to facilitate public access.

A prior case has a situation where the govt seized land to build a road to allow public access. The ruling was that the govt could not do such a thing without fair compensation.