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 October 2025 statistics are based on 204 total opinions released by the Court (15 fewer than in the previous month):

Where the appeals are coming from

• No district court within the Fifth Circuit logged a perfect affirmance rate in October 2025. Only the Board of Immigration Appeals came out spotless in the Fifth in October, with all 12 of the petitions for review of BIA decisions being either denied or dismissed.
• The Northern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in October, 57 total decisions. From the district, 52 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 3 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 was a full reversal; and 1 was an order for en banc rehearing.
• From the Western District of Texas, 37 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 were partial affirmance/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 was a full reversal; and 1 was an order of en banc rehearing.
• From decisions from the Southern District of Texas there were 31 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 2 full reversals; and 2 full vacaturs.
• From the Eastern District of Texas there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 1 full reversal.
• From the Eastern District of Louisiana there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 2 full reversals.
• From the Western District of Louisiana there were 11 full affirmance/appeal dismissals; and 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur.
• From the Middle District of Louisiana there were 2 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 order of en banc rehearing.
• From the Southern District of Mississippi, there were 7 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 full reversal.
• From the Northern District of Mississippi, there was 1 full affirmance/appeal dismissal; and 1 full reversal.
• From appeals from or petitions for review of other agency decisions, there were 5 denials of petitions for review; 2 grants of petitions for review; and 1 order of en banc rehearing.

What the appeals are about, and who they benefit

• The largest number of appeals were of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 109 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 3 full reversals; and 1 full vacatur. 111 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 full reversal. 2 dispositions favored the government; and 1 favored the petitioner.
• In immigration cases, there was 1 full affirmance; and 12 dismissals/denials of petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders. All 13 dispositions favored the government.
• In prisoner suits, there were 2 full affirmances/appeal dismissals. Both dispositions favored the government defendants.
• In commercial – civil cases, there were 15 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 2 full reversals; and 1 full vacatur. 15 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 5 favored the plaintiff.
• In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 15 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 3 orders of en banc rehearing. 18 of the dispositions favored the defendant; and 2 favored the plaintiff.
• In employment/labor law cases, there were 6 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 full reversal; 3 denials of petitions for review of agency decisions; and 1 grant of a petition for review of an agency decision. 5 of the dispositions favored an employer; and 8 favored the employee.
• In qualified immunity cases, there was 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur. That 1 disposition favored the government defendant.
• In personal injury/non-commercial tort cases, there were 2 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 full reversal. 2 dispositions favored the defendant; and 2 favored the plaintiff.
• In administrative law cases, there was 1 full affirmance; 2 denials of petitions for review of agency decisions; 1 grant of a petition for review of an agency decision; 1 denial of a motion; and 1 order of en banc rehearing. 5 dispositions favored the defendant/agency; and 1 disposition favored the challenger.
• In environmental law/toxic tort decisions, there was 1 full affirmance. That disposition favored the defendant.
• In social security cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the government.
• In bankruptcy cases, there was 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs. Both dispositions favored a debtor.
• In healthcare law cases, there was 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In maritime law cases, there was 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In voting/election law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In class action cases, there was 1 full affirmance; and 1 full reversal. 1 disposition favored the defendant; and 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.

Importance of argument?

In a new set of statistics that we have begun tracking with the October 2025 opinions, we are trying to gauge, empirically, the importance of having oral argument granted. We are tracking dispositions broken down by those cases that were orally argued, those cases that had oral argument granted but then withdrawn (i.e., strong enough briefing to get oral argument granted at the screening stage, only to have the merits panel subsequently determine that oral argument is not necessary), and those cases for which oral argument was not granted:

• In October 2025, there were 36 decisions resulting from orally argued cases: 20 were fully affirmed; 9 were only partially affirmed, but partially reversed or vacated; 5 were fully reversed; 2 were fully vacated; 1 resulted in a denial of a petition for review of an agency decision; and 1 resulted in at least a partial grant of a petition for review of an agency decision. So, decisions in October from the orally argued cases resulted in only a 58% full-affirmance rate. 22 of the October decisions from orally argued cases favored the defendant; while 14 favored the plaintiff.
• In the 7 October decisions where oral argument was withdrawn, 3 resulted in full affirmances; 1 was only partially affirmed; 1 was fully reversed; and 2 resulted in denials of petitions for review of agency decisions; for a 71% full-affirmance rate for cases initially ordered for oral argument but then not orally argued. 3 of those oral-argument-withdrawn decisions favored the defendant; while 4 favored the plaintiff.
• In the 157 October decisions that were never ordered for oral argument, 133 were full affirmances; 4 were only partially affirmed; 3 were fully reversed; 2 were fully vacated; 12 were denials of petitions for review of BIA orders (meaning no BIA-order reviews received oral argument); 2 were denials of petitions for agency review; and 1 was a grant of a petition for agency review, for a 94% full-affirmance rate. 147 of the no-oral-argument decisions favored the defendant; and 10 favored the plaintiff.

How much law is being made?

• Of the 204 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in October 2025, 24 were designated for publication. 13 of those were full affirmances; 4 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 4 were full reversals; 4 were orders of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of an agency order; and 2 were grants of petitions for review of agency orders.
• 177 of the October opinions were unpublished, including 144 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 9 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 5 full reversals; 2 full vacaturs; 12 denials/dismissals of petitions to review BIA orders; 4 denials of petitions for review of agency orders; and 1 denial of a motion.

Who was doing what on the Court?

Who was the busiest, in that they were on the most panels issuing opinions in October? (Judge Duncan). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judge Richman). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judge Ho, with 1). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judges Dennis and Oldham, with 3 each). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (172, with 167 of those unpublished; but 8 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? (Judge Jones). 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	21	21	4			7	14
Jones	43	42	2		1	8	35
Smith	20	20	1			3	17
Stewart	32	31	3		1	6	26
Richman	31	30	5		1	4	27
Southwick	28	28	3			4	24
Haynes	30	29	1		1	5	25
Graves	33	33				3	30
Higginson	25	24	3		1	3	22
Willett	29	28	1		1	2	27
Ho	21	20		1 (+1 w/o op.)	1	2	19
Duncan	38	37			1	1	37
Engelhardt	21	21	1			2	19
Oldham	28	25			3	1	27
Wilson	35	35				2	33
Douglas	35	35	1			3	32
Ramirez	36	35			1	5	31
Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation	2	2				1	1
King	14	14	1			3	11
Higginbotham	16	16				2	14
Davis	8	8					8
Wiener	9	9	1			1	8
Barksdale	13	13				1	12
Dennis	21	18			3	5	16
Clement	11	11	2			4	7
Unattributed/ Clerk
per curiam			172			5	167

Conclusions? Most decisions in October, as always, were unanimous, with 15 dissents and 2 concurrences out of 204 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judge 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 October was from Judge Smith.

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