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 September 2025 statistics are based on 219 total opinions released by the Court (36 fewer than in the previous month):

Where the appeals are coming from

• Two district courts within the Fifth Circuit logged perfect affirmance rates in September 2025, with all opinions in the Fifth released during the month that originated from those districts being affirmances: the Southern District of Mississippi, with 12 affirmances, and the Western District of Louisiana, with 7 affirmances.
• The Northern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in September, 61 total decisions. From the district, 57 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 3 were full reversals; and 1 was a grant of an order for en banc rehearing.
• From the Western District of Texas, 41 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 full reversals; and 1 full vacatur.
• From decisions from the Southern District of Texas there were 42 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 full reversal; and 1 full vacatur.
• From the Eastern District of Texas there were 7 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 grant of a motion.
• From the Eastern District of Louisiana there were 10 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur.
• From the Middle District of Louisiana there were 2 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
• 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 16 denials.
• From appeals from or petitions for review of other agency decisions, there were 3 denials of petitions for review.

What the appeals are about, and who they benefit

• The largest number of appeals were of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 118 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 full vacaturs. 118 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 2 favored the defendant.
• In post-conviction relief cases, including state and federal habeas petitions, there were 6 full affirmances. All 6 dispositions favored the government.
• In immigration cases, there was 1 full reversal; and 16 dismissals/denials of petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders. 16 dispositions favored the government; and 1 favored the immigrant.
• In prisoner suits, there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals. All 8 dispositions favored the government defendants.
• In commercial – civil cases, there were 11 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 full reversals; and 1 grant of a motion. 11 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 4 favored the plaintiff.
• In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 17 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 order of en banc rehearing. All 18 of the dispositions favored the defendant.
• In employment/labor law cases, there were 7 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 full reversal. 7 of the dispositions favored an employer; and 2 favored the employee.
• In qualified immunity cases, there were 3 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversals. All 4 dispositions favored the government defendant.
• In personal injury/non-commercial tort cases, there were 3 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal. 3 dispositions favored the defendant; and 1 favored the plaintiff.
• In administrative law cases, there was 1 full affirmance; and 2 grants of petitions for review of agency decisions. All 3 dispositions favored the defendant/agency.
• In arbitration law cases, there was 1 full vacatur. That one disposition favored the defendant.
• In environmental law/toxic tort decisions, there was 1 denial of a petition for agency decision. That disposition favored the defendant.
• In international law decisions, there was 1 full affirmance; and 1 full reversal. 1 disposition favored the defendant; and 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In social security cases, there were 2 full affirmances. Both dispositions favored the government.
• In bankruptcy cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored a creditor.
• In healthcare law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In maritime law cases, there were 3 full affirmances. 2 of those dispositions favored the defendant; and 1 favored the plaintiff.

How much law is being made?

• Of the 219 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in September 2025, 31 were designated for publication. 19 of those were full affirmances; 2 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 4 were full reversals; 1 was an order of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of a BIA order; 3 were denials of petitions to review other agency decisions; and 1 was a grant of a motion.
• 184 of the September opinions were unpublished, including 163 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 4 full reversals; 2 full vacaturs; and 15 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 September? (Judge Willett, on 52 issuing panels). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judges Graves and Oldham, with 5 each). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judges Ho and Oldham, with 2 each). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judges Dennis and Ramirez, with 2 each). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (185, with 180 of those unpublished; but 5 of the designated “per curiam” decisions were not “true” per curia for the court, as they were accompanied by separate concurrences and/or dissents). Who participated in making the most law, participating in the most panels with published opinions? (Judges Willett and Oldham, with 7 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	2	1		6	14
Jones	30	30				4	26
Smith	22	21	1		1	6	16
Stewart	30	30	1			2	28
Richman	37	37	3	1		5	32
Southwick	28	27	1		1	2	26
Haynes	43	43		(2 w/o op.)		4	39
Graves	32	31	4		1	6	26
Higginson	21	21	3		1	5	17
Willett	52	52	2			3	49
Ho	39	39	2	2		7	32
Duncan	24	24	2			5	19
Engelhardt	27	27				4	23
Oldham	41	40	2	2	1	7	34
Wilson	31	31	1			3	28
Douglas	31	30	1		1	4	25
Ramirez	38	36			2	6	32
Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation	4	4	1			2	2
King	24	24				3	21
Jolly
Higginbotham	14	14	1			1	13
Davis	6	6					6
Wiener	16	16	2			2	14
Barksdale	10	10					10
Dennis	11	9			2	4	7
Clement	10	10				1	9
Unattributed/ Clerk
per curiam			185			5	180

Conclusions? Most decisions in September, as always, were unanimous, with 10 dissents and 8 concurrences out of 219 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judge King had the heaviest participation in panels, with as much as many of the active-status judges. Meanwhile, among active-status judges, the lightest production in September was from Chief Judge Elrod.

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