William David Jones v. Defense Supply Center, Defense Logistics Agency, Richmond, Virginia

The “record rule” is the foundation of APA litigation, and this Court has affirmed the lower courts must comply with the rule noting such cases as Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 US 402 (1971), Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 US 729 (1985) and most recently, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 US 369 (2024). Despite the number of cases heard before this Court over the years since Congress passed the APA in 1946, the Circuits remain hopelessly split by allowing agencies to supplement the AR. The DC Circuit most consistently and rigidly applies the record rule followed by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Circuits, with the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits interpreting the rule inconsistently. The 6th Circuit shows the least consistency. The inconsistent application of the record rule creates anarchy for litigants based on geography. This case, should the Supreme Court hear it, will strengthen the record rule, the rights of private citizens, private and public organizations, and communities throughout this country. The question is: did the reviewing court and 4th Circuit violate the APA’s record rule and cause reversible harmful error to the petitioner by allowing and considering two Ars and additional documents not in the AR and not used in the agency’s decision-making process?

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants military commanders wide latitude to ensure safety and good order of their commands, but within the constraints of their jurisdiction and authority. If a person violates a law, rule, or policy where life, safety or property were truly threatened, the commander , may use publicly accessible, internal, agency debarment procedures to debar that persons. In this case, the agency failed to produce its debarment process and procedures in the AR. The commander debarred the petitioner but affirmed in a sworn statement the petitioner did not violate any law—and affirmed she had no jurisdiction over the petitioner. The lower court allowed the debarment to stand after the agency supplemented the AR with an internal training memorandum, violating the record rule and DoDI 5200.08. The 4th Circuit affirmed. If the appeal were before a more conservative circuit, such as the DC Circuit, the decision would likely have been overturned. The compound question is: (1) because the commander swore the petitioner violated no law and affirmed she had no authority or jurisdiction over the petitioner, did the commander exceed her jurisdiction and authority when she debarred the petitioner, and (2) did the lower courts violate the record rule by allowing the agency to supplement the AR with documents never used or seen in the agency's decision-making process which the reviewing court claimed justified the commander’s debarment decision?