Blunt v. Town of Gilbert

Blunt v. Town of Gilbert · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 3, 2026 · No. 24-3538

Summary

The Ninth Circuit certified three questions to the Arizona Supreme Court concerning whether a 2022 amendment to Arizona’s Peace Officers Bill of Rights applies to a preexisting at-will employment agreement between Brian Blunt and the Town of Gilbert. The questions address retroactivity, whether the amendment voided the agreement and required just cause for discipline, and whether that result would violate the Contract Clause of the Arizona Constitution. The Ninth Circuit stayed further proceedings and administratively closed the appeal pending the Arizona Supreme Court’s action.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Johnnie B. Rawlinson; Patrick J. Bumatay; Gabriel P. Sanchez
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
April 3, 2026
Docket number
24-3538
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs appealed the District of Arizona's dismissal with prejudice of their claims concerning the termination of Brian Blunt, including procedural and substantive due process claims, claims under the Arizona Peace Officers Bill of Rights, and a request for mandamus relief. The Ninth Circuit withdrew the appeal from submission and certified three unsettled questions of Arizona law to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Standard of review
Not reached; the Ninth Circuit certified controlling questions of unsettled Arizona law rather than deciding the merits of the appeal.
Precedential value
Published Ninth Circuit certification order; precedential as to the certification decision, not a merits resolution of the certified Arizona-law questions.
Parties
Brian Blunt, Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs v. Michael Soelberg, in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the Gilbert Police Department, Town of Gilbert, Nathan Williams, in his official capacity as the Human Resources Executive Director of the Town of Gilbert
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedurestatutory interpretationemployment contractscontractsconstitutional law

Practice areas

appellate procedureemployment lawcontractsconstitutional lawstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the presumption against retroactivity prohibits applying the 2022 amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes § 38-1102 to at-will employment agreements signed before the amendment.
  2. If the presumption against retroactivity does not apply, whether the 2022 amendment voids Blunt's at-will employment agreement because the events giving rise to his termination occurred after enactment of the amendment, requiring discipline to be supported by just cause.
  3. If the amendment voids the agreement, whether that result impairs a vested contractual right in violation of the Contract Clause of the Arizona Constitution.
  4. Whether certification of those unsettled and determinative questions to the Arizona Supreme Court was appropriate.

Holdings

  1. Certification to the Arizona Supreme Court was the appropriate course because the questions concerning the retroactive effect of the 2022 amendment, its effect on preexisting at-will employment agreements, and the Arizona Contract Clause were important, unsettled, and determinative of the appeal.

Key quotations

We conclude that certification of these questions of Arizona law to the Arizona Supreme Court is the appropriate course of action to resolve this case. (12)
This case is withdrawn from submission. Further proceedings in this case before our court are stayed pending final action by the Arizona Supreme Court. (13)

Factual background

Brian Blunt served as a Gilbert police officer for approximately twenty-one years and signed an at-will employment agreement when promoted to police commander in 2021. After a 2023 employee-engagement survey and investigation into allegations that he made unprofessional, offensive, and harassing statements, the Town terminated him in September 2023. The Town denied his requests for the investigative materials, a pretermination hearing, and an appeal process. The dispute concerns whether a 2022 amendment to Arizona's Peace Officers Bill of Rights affected his preexisting at-will agreement.

Procedural history

Blunt sued the Town of Gilbert and related officials in Arizona state court after his termination, alleging that he was denied procedural protections under the Arizona Peace Officers Bill of Rights and seeking rescission of his termination pending a pretermination hearing and appeal process. Defendants removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice, concluding that Blunt's at-will employment agreement did not create a constitutionally protected employment interest, that the 2022 amendment to the Peace Officers Bill of Rights did not apply retroactively, that the statute provided no private right of action, and that the failure-to-train and mandamus claims failed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit certified three questions concerning retroactivity, the effect of the 2022 amendment on the employment agreement, and the Arizona Contract Clause.

Remand instructions

The court certified the three questions to the Arizona Supreme Court, withdrew the case from submission, stayed further proceedings pending final action by that court, administratively closed the docket pending further order, and retained jurisdiction. The parties must notify the Ninth Circuit within fourteen days of the Arizona Supreme Court's acceptance or rejection of certification and, if accepted, within fourteen days of that court's decision.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…