⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears oral argument in N. M. versus Guillemin. The panel consists of Chief Judge Mary Murguia and Circuit Judges M. Margaret McKeown and Richard Paez. The case arises from a fatal officer-involved shooting at a ski resort in California. The officer who fired was a state parks ranger, and he is not the appellant here. This appeal is about what the Highway Patrol officer on scene, Clayton Guillemin, did afterward. The man who was shot was handcuffed and remained at the scene, receiving medical attention from paramedics who arrived within minutes. He died approximately thirty to forty minutes after being shot, without being transported to a hospital. The central legal issues on appeal are whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity on two claims: first, a Fourth Amendment claim that Officer Guillemin failed to provide adequate post-shooting medical care, and second, a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deprivation of familial association brought by the decedent's spouse. The district court denied the officer's motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, and the officer appeals that interlocutory order. The arguments turn on whether clearly established law gave the officer fair warning that his actions violated constitutional rights.

N. M. v. Guillemin (No. 25-5890) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 10, 2026.