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 June 2024 statistics are based on 178 total opinions released by the Court (2 more than in the previous month).
Where the appeals are coming from
- Only the Northern District of Mississippi had a perfect affirmance rate in June 2024, with 3 full affirmances.
- The Southern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there, 46 total decisions. From the district, 42 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 2 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 2 were full vacaturs.
- From the Northern District of Texas, 38 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 5 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 1 was a grant of mandamus.
- From decisions from the Western District of Texas there were 28 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 2 full reversals; 1 denial of mandamus; and 1 full vacatur.
- From the Eastern District of Texas there were 6 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
- From the Western District of Louisiana, there were 9 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 3 full reversals; and 1 full vacatur.
- From the Eastern District of Louisiana, there were 2 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; and 1 full vacatur.
- From the Middle District of Louisiana, there 3 full affirmances; and 2 full reversals.
- From the Southern District of Mississippi, there were 5 full affirmances; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 2 full vacaturs.
- From petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeal decisions, there were 10 denials.
- From appeals of or petitions for review of other agency actions, there were 2 grants of petitions for review of an agency order; and 1 order granting a stay pending review.
What the appeals are about, and who they benefit
- The largest number of appeals were of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 92 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 was a denial of a writ of mandamus; and 1 was a full vacatur. 93 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 1 favored the defendant.
- In post-conviction relief cases, including state and federal habeas petitions, there was 1 full affirmance; and 1 full vacatur. 1 disposition 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 1 full affirmance of a district court judgment. All 11 dispositions favored the government.
- In prisoner suits, there were 2 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs. 2 dispositions favored the government defendants; and 2 favored the prisoner plaintiffs.
- In commercial – civil cases, there were 13 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 2 full reversals; and 2 full vacaturs. 12 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 7 favored the plaintiff.
- In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 12 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs. 10 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 4 favored the plaintiff.
- In employment/labor law cases, there were 7 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 full reversal; and 1 full vacatur. 7 of the dispositions favored an employer, and 4 favored the employees.
- In qualified immunity cases, there was 1 full affirmance/appeal dismissal; 1 full reversal; and 1 full vacatur. 2 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 1 favored the plaintiff.
- In personal injury/non-commercial tort cases, there was 1 full affirmance; and 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur. Both dispositions favored the defendant.
- In environmental law/toxic tort cases, there was 1 full reversal. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
- In administrative law cases, there was 1 full affirmance; 1 full reversal; 1 grant of mandamus; 2 grants of petitions for review of agency actions; and 1 grant of a stay pending review. 5 dispositions favored the plaintiff/challenger; and 1 favored the defendant/government actor.
- In arbitration cases, there were 2 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal. 2 dispositions favored the defendant; and 1 favored the plaintiff.
- In healthcare law cases, there was 1 full affirmance; and 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs. 1 disposition favored the defendant, and 2 favored the plaintiff.
- In tax law cases, there was 1 full affirmance; and 1 full reversal. 1 disposition favored the taxpayer, and 1 favored the taxing entity.
- In voting/election law cases, there was 1 full reversal. That disposition favored the government defendant.
- In maritime law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That disposition favored the plaintiff.
- In attorney discipline cases, there was 1 full vacatur. That 1 disposition favored the sanctioned attorneys.
How much law is being made?
- Of the 178 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in June 2024, 32 were designated for publication. 16 of those were full affirmances; 5 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 5 were full reversals; 2 concerned mandamus (1 grant and 1 denial); 2 were full vacaturs; and 2 were grants of petitions for review of agency action.
- 146 of the June opinions were unpublished, including 120 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 6 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 4 full reversals; 5 full vacaturs; 10 denials/dismissals of petitions to review BIA orders; and 1 grant of a motion for stay pending review.
Who was doing what on the Court?
Who was the busiest, in that they were on the most panels issuing opinions in June? (Judges Southwick and Engelhardt). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions? (Judge Smith, with 6). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judges Southwick and Graves, with 1 each; Judge Haynes also concurred in 1 decision, but without opinion). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judges Smith and Graves, with 2 each; Judge Ho also dissented from 2 decisions, but one of those was without a separate opinion). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (144, with 142 of those unpublished). Who participated in making the most law, participating in the most panels with published opinions? (Judge Wilson, with 13). 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 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | ||
| Jones | 12 | 12 | 1 | 5 | 7 | ||
| Smith | 35 | 33 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 27 | |
| Stewart | 30 | 30 | 2 | 3 | 27 | ||
| Elrod | 20 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 17 | |
| Southwick | 42 | 42 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 33 | |
| Haynes | 20 | 19 | (1 w/o op.) | 1 | 3 | 17 | |
| Graves | 29 | 26 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 24 | |
| Higginson | 29 | 29 | 2 | 1 | 28 | ||
| Willett | 27 | 27 | 3 | 6 | 21 | ||
| Ho | 22 | 20 | 1 (+1 w/o op.) | 8 | 14 | ||
| Duncan | 30 | 29 | 1 | 7 | 23 | ||
| Engelhardt | 42 | 42 | 4 | 10 | 32 | ||
| Oldham | 20 | 20 | 3 | 17 | |||
| Wilson | 34 | 34 | 5 | 13 | 21 | ||
| Douglas | 22 | 21 | 1 | 5 | 17 | ||
| Ramirez | 25 | 25 | 3 | 4 | 21 | ||
| Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
| King | 10 | 10 | 2 | 8 | |||
| Jolly | 7 | 7 | 7 | ||||
| Higginbotham | 22 | 22 | 22 | ||||
| Davis | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
| Wiener | 15 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 12 | ||
| Barksdale | 10 | 10 | 10 | ||||
| Dennis | 13 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 12 | ||
| Clement | 17 | 17 | 3 | 7 | 10 | ||
| Unattributed/ Clerk | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| per curiam | 142 (3 with separate concurrence, dissent, or dubitante) | 2 | 144 |
Conclusions? Most decisions in June, as always, were unanimous, with only 11 dissents and 3 separate concurrences out of 178 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judge Higginbotham had the heaviest participation in panels, participating in the same general level of panels as some of the active-status judges. Meanwhile, among active-status judges, the lightest production in June was from Chief Judge Richman.
Wrap it all together, and an opinion in June 2024 was most likely to be an unpublished per curiam affirming a criminal decision from the Southern District of Texas, with Judges Southwick, Engelhardt, and Smith on the panel.
Take the Fifth 