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 June 2025 statistics are based on 210 total opinions released by the Court (12 more than in the previous month):

Where the appeals are coming from

• Only one district court within the Fifth Circuit logged a perfect affirmance rate in June 2025, with all opinions in the Fifth released during the month that originated from that district being affirmances: the Middle District of Louisiana, with 3 affirmances.
• The Western District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in June, 53 total decisions. From the district, 49 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 2 were a partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 was a full vacatur; and 1 was a grant of a motion for a Certificate of Appealability.
• From the Northern District of Texas, 35 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 full reversal; 1 full vacatur; and 1 order of en banc rehearing.
• From decisions from the Southern District of Texas there were 30 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 3 full reversals; and 4 full vacaturs.
• From the Eastern District of Texas there were 13 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full vacatur.
• From the Eastern District of Louisiana there were 11 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
• From the Western District of Louisiana there were 16 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 certification to the state supreme court.
• From the Southern District of Mississippi, there were 12 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 full vacatur; and 1 certification to the state supreme court.
• From the Northern District of Mississippi, there were 2 full affirmances; and 1 full reversal.
• From petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeal decisions, there were 13 denials.
• From petitions for review of other agency decisions, there was 1 grant 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. 110 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 was a partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 3 were full vacaturs. 110 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 4 favored the defendant.
• In post-conviction relief cases, including state and federal habeas petitions, there were 2 full affirmances; and 1 grant of a certificate of appealability. 2 dispositions favored the government, and 1 favored the petitioner.
• In immigration cases, there were 13 dismissals/denials of petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders. All 13 dispositions favored the government.
• In prisoner suits, there were 4 full affirmances/appeal dismissals. All four dispositions favored the government defendants.
• In commercial – civil cases, there were 12 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 2 full reversals; 1 certification to a state supreme court; and 1 order of en banc rehearing. 13 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 6 favored the plaintiff.
• In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 17 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full vacatur. 16 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 2 favored the plaintiff.
• In employment/labor law cases, there were 4 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 1 full vacatur. 3 of the dispositions favored an employer; and 4 favored the employee.
• In qualified immunity cases, there were 5 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 2 full reversals. 5 dispositions favored the government defendants, and 2 favored the plaintiffs.
• In personal injury/non-commercial tort cases, there were 7 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 certification to a state supreme court. 6 dispositions favored the defendant; and 2 favored the plaintiff.
• In administrative law cases, there was 1 full vacatur; and 1 grant of petition for review of an agency order. Both dispositions favored the defendant/agency.
• In bankruptcy cases, there were 4 full affirmances; and 1 full reversal. 4 dispositions favored the creditor; and 1 disposition favored the debtor.
• In healthcare law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That disposition favored the government defendant.
• In arbitration law cases, there were 3 full affirmances; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 full vacatur. 1 disposition favored the defendant; and 4 favored the plaintiff.
• In social security decisions, there were 2 full affirmances. Both dispositions favored the agency.
• In class action cases, there was 1 full vacatur. That disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In international law cases, there was 1 full reversal. That disposition favored the plaintiff.

How much law is being made?

• Of the 210 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in June 2025, 42 were designated for publication. 24 of those were full affirmances; 4 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 5 were full reversals; 4 were full vacaturs; 2 were certifications to state supreme courts; 1 was an order of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of a BIA order; and 1 was a grant of a petition for agency review.
• 168 of the June opinions were unpublished, including 147 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 full reversal; 4 full vacaturs; 12 denials/dismissals of petitions to review BIA orders; and 1 grant of a certificate of appealability.

Who was doing what on the Court?

Who was the busiest, in that they were on the most panels issuing opinions in June? (Judge Jones). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judge Graves, with 5). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judge Ho, with 2). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judges King, Haynes, Higginson, Ho, and Douglas, with 1 each). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (172, with 168 of those unpublished; but 2 of the designated “per curiam” decisions were not “true” per curia for the court, as they were accompanied by separate concurrences or dissents). Who participated in making the most law, participating in the most panels with published opinions? (Judges Clement, Graves, and Higginson, with 10 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
Elrod	20	20	3			7	13
Jones	45	45	1			5	40
Smith	25	25	3			6	19
Stewart	34	34	4			8	26
Richman	9	9				3	6
Southwick	35	35				2	33
Haynes	31	30	2	(1 w/o op.)	1	6	24
Graves	34	34	4	1		10	24
Higginson	21	20	3		1	7	14
Willett	35	35	4			10	25
Ho	28	27		2	1	5	23
Duncan	19	19	2			5	14
Engelhardt	26	26	1	1		3	23
Oldham	28	27	2	1 (+1 w/o op.)		7	21
Wilson	22	22	2			3	19
Douglas	26	25	1		1	5	21
Ramirez	41	41	3			5	36
Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation	5	5				2	3
King	24	23	1		1	6	18
Jolly	13	13					13
Higginbotham	24	24	2			3	21
Davis	10	10					10
Wiener	27	27				2	25
Barksdale	10	10					10
Dennis	19	19		1		4	15
Clement	12	12	1			10	2
Unattributed/ Clerk
per curiam			172			4	168

Conclusions? Most decisions in June, as always, were unanimous, with 5 dissents and 8 concurrences out of 210 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judges King, Higginbotham, Wiener, and Dennis 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 June was from Judge Richman.

Wrap it all together, and an opinion in June 2025 was most likely to be an unpublished per curiam affirming a criminal decision from the Western District of Texas, with Judges Jones, Ramirez, and Willett or Southwick on the panel.