A nice hidden gem in this ruling - the supreme court didn't refute or counter the 9th circuit court's statement to the effect of
> The 9th Circuit noted that those facilities could still refuse to shelter homeless people who exceed limits of the number of days they can stay or who object to mandatory religious programs.
It'd be quite problematic for folks to be jailed for refusing mandatory religious programs - even if those people were homeless. I'm happy to see that this group of people managed to stand up for their rights against Boise - and maybe the city just needs to put out a bit more money toward health and safety by supplying adequate secular shelter options[1].
1. As an aside, I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities are religiously driven.
> The 9th Circuit noted that those facilities could still refuse to shelter homeless people who exceed limits of the number of days they can stay or who object to mandatory religious programs.
It'd be quite problematic for folks to be jailed for refusing mandatory religious programs - even if those people were homeless. I'm happy to see that this group of people managed to stand up for their rights against Boise - and maybe the city just needs to put out a bit more money toward health and safety by supplying adequate secular shelter options[1].
1. As an aside, I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities are religiously driven.