[Talk-us] (no subject)

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-06-23 8:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Supreme Court rules for a second time that indian nations are domestic 
> dependent nations with inherent sovereign authority.  This affirms 
> that indian reservations are higher than the state level, lower than 
> the federal level.
>
> This sounds like the SCOTUS just reaffirmed a case for indian 
> reservations being tagged as admin_level=3, if we're tagging for 
> accurate status and not for the renderer.  Thoughts?
>
> http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Mich_v_Bay_Mills_Indian_Cmty_No_12515_US_May_27_2014_Court_Opinio

Having read through the decision, it's about tribal immunity for acts 
outside Indian* territory.

Do you propose cutting the areas out of the states, i.e. so that IRs are 
not in any admin_level=4 relations? That's what you have to do if you're 
fitting IRs into the admin_level hierarchy.

* The term used in the legal case
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140623/d2befd5c/attachment.html>