We care a (vacant) lot.
De minimus, "diminishing," is a legal term for matters which do not rise to a sufficient level of importance for trial, in other words, trifles, or considerations to the value of a few dollars. A lawsuit which is de minimus can be dismissed as frivolous. De minimus is the short form of the Latin phrase, de minimus non curat lex, "The law does not care for petty matters."
As a challenge for players of Trivial Pursuit it has, in common with amicus curiae, the cognate word cura, which means "care," in Latin. Even a cursory review, by search of the subject in published media discourse, tells of burgeoning docket of amicus curiae court briefs. It is a popular way of gaining standing—without standing—in court cases as a concerned person, or "friend." I call it publicity by paralegal.
As any armchair attorney knows, an amicus curiae brief is of no consequence all by itself, apart from a certified appeal (with standing.) And, for the court to grant "cert," the appeal must offer de novo argument. Very simply put, an appeal de novo is a "new" look at a lower court ruling. My understanding is that it is such “new,” or previously unheard arguments, that gives an appeal merit.
For our purposes, the right to trespass persons from private property is well-established, and would likely be disregarded as a de minimis argument by Superior Court, and result in formal refusal. A more creative approach to the problem of homelessness is needed than simply “make it go away.” What has not been answered, to the Court's satisfaction, is where the displaced persons are to go. Due process is not The Spanish Inquisition, whereby the fate of the accused was always a foregone conclusion.
Let's not forget, due process is for the protection of the accused. As a true amicus, or "friend," one might be expected to argue in favor of tolerance, not expediency. The appellant is not the one in danger. Rather, it is the perceived opponent—the homeless—who is in danger. To get a grip on the situation, consider reversal of roles; suppose it was private property being condemned—under eminent domain—for public use. All property that is privately owned is subject to confiscation for public use.
Have you experienced relocation by condemnation under eminent domain? As an artist, legally occupying a questionable building—one suited to my work—I joined the ranks of the many artists living, and working, under similar conditions. As a victim of "gentrification," I may write and publish an anecdotal account of my experience (in a future blog.) All I will say about it at this time is that my settlement was more than adequate given my options. Other parties affected were not so satisfied.
Which topic is the more controversial: homelessness, or seizure of private property under eminent domain? My advice to private property owners is be careful what you ask for. Your property could become the dumping place for the next wave of relocated homeless persons (if it so pleases the State.) Consider the recent public relations debacle surrounding the Brighton Park, Chicago, homeless camp. Development was halted by the Environmental Protection Agency with a ruling condemning the ground beneath the proposed location of the facility.
This was to be a model holding camp for the massive influx of foreign refugees, counted as homeless, alongside domestic homeless persons. Now, as a matter of public record, the property is not only useless to the private sector, but useless to the City of Chicago (or whichever local government has jurisdiction). The era of political “clout” in Chicago is officially over. To be fair, Chicago never faced a humanitarian crisis of the present magnitude. What, then, is to be done? Bring back the Daley dynasty? Don't hold your breath.
I would narrate the Brighton Park scandal in detail, except that I might be accused of “milking” a pitiable humanitarian situation, for personal advantage. At this point, I don't fear being accused of incitement, so much as not to offer a little friendly advice: Do not let this happen to you. When “The Feds” get involved, there's no higher recourse, short of an Act of Congress.
And, while we're looking to the future, it should be advised that no claims of adverse health reaction from exposure to the contaminated soil will be considered after the fact. That includes the long-standing residents of the surrounding neighborhood. Or, only to the extent of medical cost incurred before condemnation of the vacant lot. The sitting residents should consider themselves lucky if their properties are not condemned along with the EPA site. Fair warning!