Facts of the Case
Respondent Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation (Yakima Nation) claimed zoning authority over the land under a treaty reserving to it exclusive use and benefit of the land. Yakima adopted a zoning ordinance that applied to all lands on its reservation including fee lands. Petitioner Philip Brendale, who is part Indian but not a member of the Yakima Nation, and other non-tribal fee landowners filed plans to develop their land with the county. The planning department for the County of Yakima, govermental entity in the state of Washington, approved the plans. The Yakima Nation appealed to the county commissioners, stating that the county had no zoning authority over the land. The county commissioners affirmed the planning department’s decisions. The Yakima Nation filed suit in district court, which held that the Yakima Nation had exclusive zoning authority over the property of one of the landowners but not the other. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Yakima Nation had authority over both properties. Petitioners, county and fee landowners, sought certorari review of appellate court’s judgment, which held that the county had no zoning authority over fee land located on the reservation of respondent Yakima Nation.
“Is the former government official entitled to qualified immunity from the pretext claim based on the conclusions that (a) the Fourth Amendment prohibits an officer from executing a valid material witness warrant with the intent of conducting further investigation or preventively detaining the subject