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 February 2026 statistics are based on 207 total opinions released by the Court (61 more than in the previous month):

Where the appeals are coming from

• In February 2026, no district had a perfect affirmance rate for decisions released by the Fifth Circuit.
• The Northern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in February, 58 total decisions. From the district, 54 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 1 was a full reversal; 1 was a full vacatur; 1 was a certification to a state supreme court; and 1 was a published denial of en banc rehearing.
• From the Western District of Texas, 38 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 was a full reversal; 2 were full vacaturs; and 1 was a published denial of en banc rehearing.
• From the Southern District of Texas, 33 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 was a full reversal; 3 were full vacaturs; and 1 was a grant of a motion.
• From decisions from the Eastern District of Texas there were 11 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
• From the Eastern District of Louisiana there were 10 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
• From the Western District of Louisiana there were 12 full affirmance/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 published denial of en banc rehearing; and 1 grant of a motion.
• From the Middle District of Louisiana, there were 2 full vacaturs; and 1 published denial of en banc rehearing.
• From the Southern District of Mississippi, there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; 1 order of en banc rehearing; and 1 denial of a motion.
• From the Northern District of Mississippi, there was 1 full affirmance; and 1 full reversal.
• On petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders, 12 petitions were denied or dismissed.
• On petitions for review of other agency actions, there were 2 denials and 3 grants.

What the appeals are about, and who they benefit

• The largest number of appeals were of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 97 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; and 4 full vacaturs. 98 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 5 favored the defendant.
• In immigration cases, there was 1 full reversal; 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 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 full vacatur; and 1 published denial of en banc rehearing. 8 dispositions favored the government defendants; and 2 favored the prisoner plaintiff.
• In commercial – civil cases, there were 16 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; 1 full vacatur; and 1 denial of a petition for review of agency action. 13 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 7 favored the plaintiff.
• In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 16 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 full reversal; 2 full vacaturs; 1 published denial of en banc rehearing; 1 denial of a motion; and 1 grant of a motion. 20 of the dispositions favored the defendant; and 5 favored the plaintiff.
• In employment/labor law cases, there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 grant of a petition for review of an agency decision; and 1 denial of a petition for review of an agency decision. 7 of the dispositions favored an employer; and 4 favored the employee.
• In qualified immunity cases, there was 1 full affirmance; 2 full reversals; 1 published denial of en banc rehearing; and 1 grant of en banc rehearing. 4 of the dispositions favored the government defendant; 1 favored the plaintiff.
• In administrative law cases, there were 2 full affirmances; and 2 grants of petitions for review of agency decisions. 2 disposition favored the plaintiff; and 2 favored the government.
• In bankruptcy cases, there were 3 full affirmances; and 1 certification of a question to a state supreme court. 1 disposition favored the creditor; and 3 favored the debtor.
• In maritime law cases, there were 2 full affirmances. 1 disposition favored the defendant; and 1 favored the plaintiff.
• In habeas corpus/other post-conviction-relief cases, there were 2 full affirmances/appeal dismissals. Both dispositions favored the government defendant.
• In arbitration law cases, there was 1 full affirmance; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 published denial of en banc rehearing. All 3 dispositions favored the plaintiff.
• In voting/election law cases, there was 1 full reversal. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In class action cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In social security cases, there were 4 full affirmances. All 4 dispositions favored the defendant.
• In healthcare law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In personal torts cases, there were 4 full affirmances. All 4 dispositions favored the defendant.
• In attorney discipline cases, there was 1 grant of a motion. That 1 disposition favored the defendant (favoring the sanction on the plaintiff’s attorney).

Importance of oral argument?

• In February 2026, there were 48 decisions resulting from orally argued cases: 25 were fully affirmed; 4 were only partially affirmed, but partially reversed or vacated; 4 were fully reversed; 5 were fully vacated; 4 resulted ultimately in published denials of en banc rehearing; 1 resulted in an order of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of a petition for agency review; 3 were grants of petitions for agency review; and 1 was a grant of a motion. So, decisions in February from the orally argued cases resulted in a 60.5% full-affirmance rate (backing out the 5 decisions on en banc rehearing from the calculation). 24 of the February decisions from orally argued cases favored the defendant; while 24 favored the plaintiff.
• In the 8 February decisions where oral argument was withdrawn after initially being granted, 7 resulted in full affirmances; and 1 was a certification to a state supreme court; for an 87.5% full-affirmance rate for cases initially ordered for oral argument but then not orally argued. 4 of those oral-argument-withdrawn decisions favored the defendant; while 4 favored the plaintiff.
• In the 155 February decisions that were never ordered for oral argument, 132 were full affirmances; 3 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 3 were full reversals; 3 were fully vacated; 12 were denials of petitions for review of BIA orders; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of other agency action; and 1 was a denial of a motion; for a 94.2% full-affirmance rate. 148 of the no-oral-argument decisions favored the defendant; and 7 favored the plaintiff.

How much law is being made?

• Of the 207 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in February 2026, 39 were designated for publication. 14 of those were full affirmances; 4 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 4 were full reversals; 4 were full vacaturs; 1 was a certification to a state supreme court; 4 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 an agency decision; 3 were grants of petitions for review of agency action; 1 was a denial of a motion; and 2 were grants of motions.
• 168 of the February opinions were unpublished, including 153 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 3 full reversals; 4 full vacaturs; 12 denials/dismissals of petitions to review BIA orders; and 1 denial of a petition for review of an other agency action.

Who was doing what on the Court?

Who was the busiest, in that they were on the most panels issuing opinions in February? (Judge Jones). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judge Ho). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judges Ho, with 3). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judges Ho and Oldham, with 4 each). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (181, with 171 of those unpublished; but 4 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	17	17	4			11	6
Jones	49	47	4		1	10	39
Smith	29	27	4			14	15
Stewart	42	41				6	36
Richman	46	45	3			13	33
Southwick	35	35	1			8	27
Haynes	33	32	1	1	1	9	24
Graves	45	44	2			8	37
Higginson	21	20		1	1	7	14
Willett	48	48	3			9	39
Ho	40	37	1	3	4	8	32
Duncan	43	41	3			11	32
Engelhardt	26	24	1			8	18
Oldham	48	43		2	4	9	39
Wilson	40	39	1	1		13	27
Douglas	41	39	4		1	9	31
Ramirez	25	24			1	8	19
Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation	4	4	1			2	2
King	18	18				2	16
Higginbotham	10	10					10
Davis	14	14					14
Wiener	8	8					8
Barksdale	7	7				1	6
Dennis	8	6			2	6	2
Clement	3	3				2	1
Unattributed/ Clerk
per curiam			181			10	171

Conclusions? Most decisions in February, as always, were unanimous, with 15 dissents and 8 concurrences out of 207 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judge 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 February was from Chief Judge Elrod.

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