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 August 2024 statistics are based on 224 total opinions released by the Court (34 more than in the previous month).
Where the appeals are coming from
- The Middle District of Louisiana was the only district with a perfect affirmance rate for decisions arising from that district that were disposed of in August 2024, with 8 full affirmances.
- The Southern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in August, 64 total decisions. From the district, 53 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 3 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 5 were full reversals; and 3 were full vacaturs.
- From the Northern District of Texas, 33 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 2 were full reversals; 2 were full vacaturs; 1 was a certification to a state supreme court; and 1 was a published denial of en banc rehearing.
- From decisions from the Western District of Texas there were 28 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 3 full reversals; 4 full vacaturs; and 1 certification to the state supreme court.
- From the Eastern District of Texas there were 11 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 full reversal.
- From the Western District of Louisiana, there were 16 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; and 2 full vacaturs.
- From the Eastern District of Louisiana, there were 10 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 5 full reversals.
- From the Southern District of Mississippi, there were 7 full affirmances; and 1 full reversal.
- From the Northern District of Mississippi, there were 4 full affirmances or appeal dismissals; and 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur.
- From petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeal decisions, there were 10 denials and 1 grant.
- From appeals of or petitions for review of other agency actions, there was 1 denial of a petition for review of an agency order.
What the appeals are about, and who they benefit
- The largest number of appeals were of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 101 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 was a full reversal; and 2 were full vacaturs. 101 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 6 favored the defendant.
- In post-conviction relief cases, including state and federal habeas petitions, there were 6 full affirmances or appeal dismissals. All 6 dispositions favored the government.
- In immigration cases, there were 10 dismissals/denials of petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders; 1 grant of a petition for review of a BIA order; and 1 full affirmance of a district court judgment. 11 dispositions favored the government; and 1 disposition favored the immigrant.
- In prisoner suits, there were 9 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur. 8 dispositions favored the government defendants; and 2 dispositions favored the prisoner plaintiffs.
- In commercial – civil cases, there were 13 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 4 full reversals; 4 full vacaturs; 1 published denial of en banc rehearing; and 1 denial of a petition for agency review. 16 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 11 favored the plaintiff.
- In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 12 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 2 full vacaturs; and 1 certification to a state supreme court. 12 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 5 favored the plaintiff.
- In employment/labor law cases, there were 14 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 2 full reversals; and 1 certification to a state supreme court. 13 of the dispositions favored an employer, and 5 favored the employees.
- In qualified immunity cases, there was 1 full affirmance/appeal dismissal; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 4 full reversals. 2 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 4 favored the plaintiff.
- In personal injury/non-commercial tort cases, there were 3 full affirmances. All 3 dispositions favored the defendant.
- In environmental law/toxic tort cases, there was 1 full affirmance; and 1 full reversal. 1 disposition favored the defendant; and 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
- In administrative law cases, there were 2 full affirmances; and 2 full reversals. All 4 dispositions favored the plaintiff/challenger.
- In voting/election law cases, there were 2 full reversals; and 1 full vacatur. 2 dispositions favored the government defendant; and 1 favored the challenging plaintiff.
- In maritime law cases, there was 1 full affirmance; and 1 full reversal. 1 disposition favored the defendant; and 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
- In bankruptcy cases, there were 2 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full vacatur. 1 of the dispositions favored the creditor or adverse claimant; and 2 favored the debtor.
- In class action cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
- In arbitration cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
- In international law cases, there was 1 full reversal; and 1 full vacatur. 1 disposition favored the defendant; and 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
How much law is being made?
- Of the 224 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in August 2024, 61 were designated for publication. 31 of those were full affirmances; 6 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 14 were full reversals; 6 were full vacaturs; 1 was a certification to a state supreme court; 1 was a denial of rehearing en banc; 1 was a grant of a petition for review of a BIA order; and 1 was a denial of a petition for review of agency action.
- 163 of the August opinions were unpublished, including 136 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 5 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 4 full reversals; 5 full vacaturs; 1 certification to a state supreme court; and 10 denials/dismissals of petitions to review BIA orders.
Who was doing what on the Court?
Who was the busiest, in that they were on the most panels issuing opinions in August? (Judge Smith). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judges Higginson, with 10). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judge Ho, with 3). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judge Haynes, with 4). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (164, with 158 of those unpublished). Who participated in making the most law, participating in the most panels with published opinions? (Judges Smith and Engelhardt, with 18 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 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | |||
| Jones | 46 | 45 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 37 | |
| Smith | 51 | 50 | 7 | 1 | 18 | 33 | |
| Stewart | 46 | 44 | 4 | 10 | 36 | ||
| Elrod | 20 | 20 | 6 | 12 | 8 | ||
| Southwick | 44 | 44 | 7 | 12 | 32 | ||
| Haynes | 37 | 33 | 4 | 10 | 27 | ||
| Graves | 38 | 36 | 3 | 11 | 27 | ||
| Higginson | 37 | 35 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 24 |
| Willett | 31 | 31 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 22 | |
| Ho | 33 | 31 | 3 | 1 (+1 w/o op.) | 9 | 24 | |
| Duncan | 31 | 31 | 1 | 7 | 24 | ||
| Engelhardt | 33 | 33 | 4 | 18 | 15 | ||
| Oldham | 28 | 28 | 1 | 8 | 20 | ||
| Wilson | 30 | 30 | 2 | 8 | 22 | ||
| Douglas | 19 | 15 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 14 | |
| Ramirez | 44 | 41 | 3 | 1 | 16 | 28 | |
| Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||
| King | 24 | 24 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 18 | |
| Jolly | 13 | 13 | 1 | 13 | |||
| Higginbotham | 17 | 17 | 4 | 13 | |||
| Davis | 9 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 8 | ||
| Wiener | 22 | 21 | 1 | 8 | 14 | ||
| Barksdale | 12 | 12 | 3 | 9 | |||
| Dennis | 9 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |
| Clement | 16 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 10 | |
| Unattributed/ Clerk | |||||||
| per curiam | 164 (5 with separate concurrence, dissent, or dubitante) | 6 | 158 |
Conclusions? Most decisions in August, as always, were unanimous, with 15 dissents and 7 concurrences out of 224 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judges King and Wiener 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 August was from Chief Judge Richman.
Wrap it all together, and an opinion in August 2024 was most likely to be an unpublished per curiam affirming a criminal decision from the Southern District of Texas, with Judges Smith, Jones, and Stewart on the panel.
Take the Fifth 