We report after each month on interesting statistics from the data we generate from the daily opinion summaries from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and at the end of each court year (Oct.-Sept.) we will aggregate that–all of which provides useful insights into the inner workings of the Court, the relative success of various appeals, and more.
The January 2024 statistics are based on 181 total opinions released by the Court (9 fewer than in the previous month).
Where the appeals are coming from
- The Northern District of Mississippi was the only district court that had a perfect affirmance rate in January 2024, with 3 full affirmances from opinions originating in that district.
- The Northern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there, 43 total decisions. In the district, 39 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 1 was a partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 2 were full reversals; and 1 was a full vacatur.
- From the Southern District of Texas, 32 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 was a partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 4 were full reversals; 3 were full vacaturs; and 1 was a certification of a question to the state supreme court.
- From decisions from the Western District of Texas there were 36 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; and 1 order of en banc rehearing.
- From the Eastern District of Texas there were 3 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 2 full reversals.
- From the Eastern District of Louisiana, there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 full reversal; and 1 order of en banc rehearing.
- From the Middle District of Louisiana, there were 5 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur.
- From the Western District of Louisiana, there were 11 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
- From the Southern District of Mississippi there were 4 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 denial of an injunction pending appeal.
- From petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeal decisions, there were 10 denials; and 2 grants.
- From appeals of or petitions for review of other agency actions, there were 2 grants of petitions for review; and 1 denial of a motion for stay pending appeal.
What the appeals are about, and who they benefit
- The largest number of appeals are of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 82 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 3 were full vacaturs. 82 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 5 favored the defendant.
- In post-conviction relief cases, including state and federal habeas petitions, there were 3 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal. 3 of the dispositions favored the government, and 1 favored the petitioner.
- In immigration cases, there were 10 dismissals/denials of petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders; and 2 grants of such petitions. 10 dispositions favored the government; and 2 favored the petitioner.
- In prisoner suits, there were 7 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 full reversal; and 1 full vacatur. 7 dispositions favored the government defendants; and 2 dispositions favored the plaintiff prisoners.
- In commercial – civil cases, there were 9 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 full reversals; and 1 certification of a question to a state supreme court. 7 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 6 favored the plaintiff.
- In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 10 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 denial of an injunction pending appeal. 10 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 1 favored the plaintiff.
- In employment/labor law cases, there were 10 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 full reversal. 11 of the dispositions favored an employer, and 1 favored the employees.
- In qualified immunity cases, there were 7 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 3 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs. 5 of the dispositions favored the government defendants; and 5 favored the plaintiffs.
- In personal injury/non-commercial tort cases, there were 2 full affirmances. Both dispositions favored the defendant.
- In social security cases, there was 1 full affirmance. The 1 disposition favored the SSA.
- In environmental law/toxic tort cases, there was 1 full affirmance; 1 order of en banc rehearing; and 1 denial of a stay pending appeal. 2 dispositions favored defendants; and 1 favored the plaintiff.
- In administrative law cases, there were 2 full reversals; and 2 grants of petitions for agency review. 1 disposition favored the defendant agency, and 3 favored the plaintiff/challengers.
- In voting/election law cases, there were 2 full affirmances; and 1 order of en banc rehearing. 2 dispositions favored the defendant government actors; and 1 favored the plaintiff.
- In arbitration cases, there was 1 full reversal. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
- In tax law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the government.
- In maritime law cases, there was 1 full reversal. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
- In abortion law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
- In healthcare law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the government.
- In attorney discipline/sanctions cases, there was 1 full affirmance of sanctions. That 1 disposition favored the sanctions award.
How much law is being made?
- Of the 181 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in January 2024, 38 were designated for publication, a higher proportion than in most months. 18 of those were full affirmances; 3 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 9 were full reversals; 1 was a certification to a state supreme court; 1 was an order of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of a BIA order; 1 was a grant of a petition for review of a BIA order; 2 were grants of a petitions for review of other agency orders; and 2 were denials of motions pending appeal.
- 143 of the January opinions were unpublished, including 123 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 2 full reversals; 4 full vacaturs; 1 order of en banc rehearing; 9 denials/dismissals of petitions to review BIA orders; and 1 grant of a petition for review of a BIA order.
Who was doing what on the Court?
Who was the busiest, in that they were on the most panels issuing opinions in January? (Judge Wilson). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions? (Judge Graves). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judges Jones, Duncan, and Higginbotham, with 1 each). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judge Graves, with 2; Judge Ho also dissented twice, but only once with a written opinion). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (144, with 139 of those unpublished). Who participated in making the most law, participating in the most panels with published opinions? (Judges Smith, Stewart, Elrod, Graves, Higginson, and Ho, with 9 each). We have all that below (senior-status judges in italics):
| Judge | On panel | In majority | Author majority | Author concur | Author dissent/ dubitante | Published | Unpublished |
| Richman | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | |||
| Jones | 28 | 27 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 22 |
| Smith | 26 | 26 | 1 | 9 | 17 | ||
| Stewart | 34 | 33 | 9 | 25 | |||
| Elrod | 25 | 24 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 16 | |
| Southwick | 35 | 34 | 3 | 7 | 28 | ||
| Haynes | 34 | 33 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 30 | |
| Graves | 29 | 27 | 6 | 2 | 9 | 20 | |
| Higginson | 27 | 26 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 18 | |
| Willett | 29 | 28 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 21 | |
| Ho | 26 | 24 | 1 | 1 (+1 w/o written opinion) | 9 | 17 | |
| Duncan | 32 | 32 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 24 | |
| Engelhardt | 26 | 26 | 2 | 6 | 20 | ||
| Oldham | 26 | 25 | 2 | 4 | 22 | ||
| Wilson | 38 | 37 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 30 | |
| Douglas | 29 | 27 | 3 | 8 | 21 | ||
| Ramirez | 15 | 15 | 1 | 14 | |||
| Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
| King | 17 | 17 | 4 | 13 | |||
| Jolly | 6 | 6 | 1 | 6 | |||
| Higginbotham | 17 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 13 | |
| Davis | 12 | 12 | 1 | 11 | |||
| Wiener | 14 | 13 | 1 | 3 | 11 | ||
| Barksdale | 6 | 6 | 6 | ||||
| Dennis | 11 | 11 | 2 | 5 | 6 | ||
| Clement | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | |||
| per curiam | 144 (3 with separate concurrence, dissent, or dubitante) | 5 | 139 |
Conclusions? Most decisions in January, as always, were unanimous, with only 10 dissenting opinions (plus one non-opinioned dissent) and 3 separate concurrences out of 181 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judges King and Higginbotham had the heaviest participation in panels, though for the first month in many none of the senior-status judges participated in the same general level of panels as most of the active-status judges. Meanwhile, among active-status judges, the lightest production in January was from Chief Judge Richman. January also saw Judge Ramirez’s first participation in panel opinions, with fifteen.
Wrap it all together, and an opinion in January 2024 was most likely to be an unpublished per curiam affirming a criminal decision from the Northern District of Texas, with Judges Wilson, Southwick, and Stewart or Haynes on the panel.
Take the Fifth 