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 January 2026 statistics are based on 146 total opinions released by the Court (58 fewer than in the previous month. likely due to the extra work put in by the judges in preparation for January’s historically heavy en banc calendar):

Where the appeals are coming from

• In January 2026, the Middle District of Louisiana, Western District of Texas, and the Northern District of Mississippi logged perfect affirmance rates, with only affirmances or appeal-dismissals on opinions originating in those districts (1 from the M.D. La., 19 from the W.D. Tex., and 2 from the N.D. Miss. along with 1 mandamus denial).
• The Northern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in January, 46 total decisions. From the district, 41 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 1 was a partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 was a full reversal; 2 were full vacaturs; and 1 was an order for en banc rehearing.
• From the Southern District of Texas, 27 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 were full reversals; 2 were full vacaturs; and 1 was a published denial of en banc rehearing.
• From decisions from the Eastern District of Texas there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
• From the Eastern District of Louisiana there were 7 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 full vacatur.
• From the Western District of Louisiana there were 7 full affirmance/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 2 full reversals; 1 denial of mandamus; 1 full vacatur; and 1 published denial of en banc rehearing.
• From the Southern District of Mississippi, there were 3 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 full reversal.
• From the U.S. Tax Court, there was 1 full vacatur.
• On petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders, 4 petitions were denied or dismissed.
• On petitions for review of other agency actions, there was 1 denial.

What the appeals are about, and who they benefit

• The largest number of appeals were of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 68 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 full reversals; and 3 full vacaturs. 68 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 5 favored the defendant.
• In immigration cases, there was 1 full affirmance; and 4 dismissals/denials of petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders. All 5 dispositions favored the government.
• In prisoner suits, there were 2 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur. 2 dispositions favored the government defendants; 1 favored the prisoner plaintiff.
• In commercial – civil cases, there were 18 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 full reversals; 1 denial of mandamus; and 2 full vacaturs. 17 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 6 favored the plaintiff.
• In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full vacatur; and 1 grant of en banc rehearing. 9 of the dispositions favored the defendant; and 2 favored the plaintiff.
• In employment/labor law cases, there were 5 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal. 5 of the dispositions favored an employer; and 1 favored the employee.
• In qualified immunity cases, there were 3 full affirmances; 1 full reversal; and 1 published denial of en banc rehearing. All 5 of the dispositions favored the government defendant.
• In administrative law cases, there was 1 full reversal. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In bankruptcy cases, there was 1 full affirmances. That 1 disposition favored the debtor.
• In maritime law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In habeas corpus/other post-conviction-relief cases, there were 5 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 1 published denial of en banc rehearing. 5 dispositions favored the government defendant; and 3 favored the petitioner.
• In arbitration law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In tax law cases, there was 1 full affirmance and 1 full vacatur. 1 disposition favored the taxation authority; and 1 favored the taxpayer.
• In voting/election law cases, there was 1 denial of mandamus. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff challenger of the election law.
• In class action cases, there was 1 full reversal. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In social security cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In environmental law/toxic tort cases, there was 1 denial of a petition for review of an agency decision. That 1 disposition favored the defendant agency.

Importance of oral argument?

• In January 2026, there were 49 decisions resulting from orally argued cases: 22 were fully affirmed; 1 was only partially affirmed, but partially reversed or vacated; 8 were fully reversed; 3 were fully vacated; 2 resulted ultimately in published denials of en banc rehearing; 1 resulted in an order of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of petition to review a BIA order; and 1 was a denial of a petition for other agency review. So, decisions in January from the orally argued cases resulted in only a 52.2% full-affirmance rate (backing out the 3 decisions on en banc rehearing from the calculation). 24 of the January decisions from orally argued cases favored the defendant; while 15 favored the plaintiff.
• In the 8 January decisions where oral argument was withdrawn after initially being granted, 6 resulted in full affirmances; and 2 were full vacaturs; for a 75% full-affirmance rate for cases initially ordered for oral argument but then not orally argued. 5 of those oral-argument-withdrawn decisions favored the defendant; while 3 favored the plaintiff.
• In the 98 January decisions that were never ordered for oral argument, 87 were full affirmances; 3 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 2 were denials of mandamus; 2 were fully vacated; and 3 were denials of petitions for review of BIA orders, for a 93.9% full-affirmance rate. 101 of the no-oral-argument decisions favored the defendant; and 6 favored the plaintiff.

How much law is being made?

• Of the 146 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in January 2026, 29 were designated for publication. 14 of those were full affirmances; 1 was a partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 5 were full reversals; 4 were full vacaturs; 2 were published denials of en banc rehearing; 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 denial of a petition for review of other agency decision.
• 115 of the January opinions were unpublished, including 101 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 3 full reversals; 2 denials of mandamus; 3 full vacaturs; and 3 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 January? (Judge Wilson). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judge Smith). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judges Willett and Ho, with 2 each). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judges Haynes and Ho, with 2 each). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (112, with 109 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? (Judge Smith). 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	16	16		1		6	10
Jones	14	13	2			3	11
Smith	27	26	7			12	15
Stewart	22	22	2			11	11
Richman	22	22	1			2	20
Southwick	18	18	1			4	14
Haynes	26	24			2	5	21
Graves	12	11			1	4	8
Higginson	20	20	3	1		6	14
Willett	27	26	2	2		5	22
Ho	23	20	1	2	2	6	17
Duncan	15	14	1			3	12
Engelhardt	26	25				4	22
Oldham	20	19	2		1	2	18
Wilson	38	37	1			8	30
Douglas	23	22	1		1	4	19
Ramirez	29	29	1			5	24
Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation	3	3				1	2
King	12	12				1	11
Higginbotham	19	19	1			1	18
Davis	7	7					7
Wiener	9	9				1	8
Barksdale	7	7				2	5
Dennis
Clement	6	6	2			3	3
Unattributed/ Clerk
per curiam			112			3	109

Conclusions? Most decisions in January, as always, were unanimous, with 7 dissents and 6 concurrences out of 146 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judges King and Higginbotham 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 January was from Judges Jones, Graves, and Duncan.

Wrap it all together, and an opinion in January 2026 was most likely to be an unpublished per curiam affirming a criminal decision from the Northern District of Texas, with Judges Wilson, Ramirez, and Smith or Willett on the panel.