Take the Fifth

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 March 2025 statistics are based on 194 total opinions released by the Court (50 fewer than in the previous month). While we typically post summaries of each of the opinions as they are released, our primary blogger (me) was in a bad bike wreck on March 13 and hospitalized with the aftermath of a major concussion for three and a half weeks (I was wearing my helmet–it was that bad). I did not read the Fifth Circuit opinions or post summaries as they happened, but on release from the hospital I have checked the opinions I missed and compiled the statistics, so the below statistics reflect the full March releases.

Where the appeals are coming from

• None of the district courts within the Fifth Circuit logged perfect affirmance rates in March 2025.
• The Northern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in February, 58 total decisions. From the district, 55 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; and 3 were full reversals.
• From the Western District of Texas, 31 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 3 were full reversals.
• From decisions from the Southern District of Texas there were 31 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 full reversal; and 2 full vacaturs.
• From the Eastern District of Texas, there were 13 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 3 full vacaturs.
• From the Eastern District of Louisiana there were 9 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 2 full reversals.
• From the Western District of Louisiana, there were 14 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 2 full vacaturs.
• From the Middle District of Louisiana, there were 4 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 full reversal; and 2 full vacaturs.
• From the Southern District of Mississippi, there were 6 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 published denial of en banc rehearing.
• From the Northern District of Mississippi, there were 4 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
• From petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeal decisions, there were 14 denials.
• From petitions for review of other agency decisions, there was 1 grant of a petition for review; and 1 denial of a petition for review.

What the appeals are about, and who they benefit

• The largest number of appeals were of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 112 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 was a partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 was a full reversal; and 4 were full vacaturs. 112 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 6 favored the defendant.
• In post-conviction relief cases, including state and federal habeas petitions, there were 2 full affirmances; and 1 full reversal. 2 dispositions favored the government; and 1 favored the petitioner.
• In immigration cases, there were 14 dismissals/denials of petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders. All 14 dispositions favored the government.
• In prisoner suits, there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal. 8 dispositions favored the government defendants; and 1 favored the prisoner.
• In commercial – civil cases, there were 12 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 full reversals; and 1 full vacatur. 10 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 5 favored the plaintiff.
• In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 9 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full vacatur. 9 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 1 favored the plaintiff.
• In employment/labor law cases, there were 12 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur. 11 of the dispositions favored an employer; and 3 favored the employee.
• In qualified immunity cases, there were 5 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 3 full reversals. 8 dispositions favored the government defendants, and 2 favored the plaintiffs.
• In personal injury/non-commercial tort cases, there was 1 full affirmance/appeal dismissal; 1 full reversal; and 3 full vacaturs. 2 dispositions favored the defendant; and 3 favored the plaintiff.
• In administrative law cases, there were 1 full affirmance; and 1 grant of a petition for review. 1 disposition favored the defendant/agency; and 1 favored the challengers.
• In bankruptcy cases, there were 2 full affirmances; and 1 full reversal. All 3 dispositions favored the creditor.
• In healthcare law challenge cases, there was 1 full reversal. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff/challenger.
• In social security cases, there were 3 full affirmances. All dispositions favored the government.
• In voting/election law cases, there was 1 published denial of en banc rehearing. That disposition favored the plaintiff.

How much law is being made?

• Of the 194 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in March 2025, 35 were designated for publication. 15 of those were full affirmances; 5 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 7 were full reversals; 4 were full vacaturs; 1 was a published denial of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of a BIA decision; 1 was a denial of a petition for agency review; and 1 was a grant of a petition for agency review.
• 174 of the March opinions were unpublished, including 152 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 3 full reversals; 5 full vacaturs; and 13 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 March? (Judge Haynes). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judge Richman, with 7). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judges Haynes, Ho, and Oldham, with 2 each). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judge Haynes, with 2). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (168, with 164 of those unpublished). Who participated in making the most law, participating in the most panels with published opinions? (JudgeRichman, with 11). We have all that below (senior-status judges in italics):

Judge	On panel	In majority	Author majority	Author concur	Author dissent/ dubitante	Published	Unpublished
Elrod	15	15	2			8	7
Jones	33	33	2		1	8	25
Smith	28	28	3			6	22
Stewart	40	39	1			7	33
Richman	24	24	7			11	13
Southwick	28	28	3			5	23
Haynes	51	50	1	2	2	6	44
Graves	32	31	2		1	9	23
Higginson	30	29	1		1	5	25
Willett	31	31	2			6	25
Ho	31	33	1	2		8	25
Duncan	33	32		1	1	6	27
Engelhardt	24	24	2			5	19
Oldham	19	19	1	2		6	13
Wilson	30	30				4	26
Douglas	39	38	2		1	4	35
Ramirez	40	39	2			6	34
Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation	3	3	1			3
King	16	16					16
Jolly	9	9					9
Higginbotham	18	18	2			4	14
Davis	10	10					10
Wiener	18	18	2			1	17
Barksdale	14	13			1	1	13
Dennis	11	10	1		1	2	9
Clement	6	6	1			4	2
Unattributed/ Clerk
per curiam			168			4	164

Conclusions? Most decisions in March, as always, were unanimous, with 9 dissents and 7 concurrences out of 194 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judges Wiener, Higginbotham, and King had the heaviest participation in panels, with as much as some of the active-status judges. Meanwhile, among active-status judges, the lightest production in March was from Chief Judge Elrod.

Wrap it all together, and an opinion in March 2025 was most likely to be an unpublished per curiam affirming a criminal decision from the Northern District of Texas, with Judges Haynes, Stewart, and Ramirez on the panel.