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 March 2026 statistics are based on 236 total opinions released by the Court (29 more than in the previous month):

Where the appeals are coming from

• In March 2026, two districts had perfect affirmance rates for decisions released by the Fifth Circuit, with solely affirmances and/or appeal dismissals: The Western District of Louisiana had 19 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and the Northern District of Mississippi had 6 full affirmances/appeal dismissals.
• The Northern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in March, 61 total decisions. From the district, 56 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 3 were full reversals; 1 was a denial of mandamus; and 1 was a full vacatur.
• From the Western District of Texas, 35 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 were full reversals; and 1 was a full vacatur.
• From the Southern District of Texas, 51 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 was a full reversal; and 2 were full vacaturs.
• From decisions from the Eastern District of Texas there were 19 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur.
• From the Eastern District of Louisiana there were 9 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 denial of mandamus; and 2 full vacaturs.
• From the Middle District of Louisiana, there were 3 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
• From the Southern District of Mississippi, there were 14 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full vacatur.
• On petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders, 12 petitions were denied or dismissed; and 1 was granted.
• On petitions for review of other agency actions, there was 1 denial and 2 grants.

What the appeals are about, and who they benefit

• The largest number of appeals were of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 122 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 full reversal; and 2 full vacaturs. 123 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 2 favored the defendant.
• In immigration cases, there was 1 full affirmance; 12 dismissals/denials of petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders; and 1 grant of a petition for review of a BIA order. 13 dispositions favored the government; and 1 favored the immigrant.
• In prisoner suits, there were 13 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full vacatur. All 14 dispositions favored the government defendants.
• In commercial – civil cases, there were 18 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 2 full reversals; and 1 full vacatur. 15 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 7 favored the plaintiff.
• In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 21 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; and 1 denial of mandamus. 22 of the dispositions favored the defendant; and 2 favored the plaintiff.
• In employment/labor law cases, there were 12 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; 1 denial of mandamus; and 1 full vacatur. 11 of the dispositions favored an employer; and 5 favored the employee.
• In qualified immunity cases, there were 2 full affirmances; and 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur. 1 disposition favored the government defendant; and 2 favored the plaintiff.
• In administrative law cases, there was 1 full affirmance; 1 denial of a petition for review of agency action; and 1 grant of a petition for review of agency action. 2 dispositions favored the plaintiff; and 1 favored the government.
• In bankruptcy cases, there were 8 full affirmances. 4 dispositions favored the creditor; and 4 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; 1 full reversal; and 1 full vacatur. All 7 dispositions favored the government defendant.
• In class action cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In social security cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In personal torts cases, there were 6 full affirmances; 1 full reversal; and 1 full vacatur. 6 dispositions favored the defendant; and 2 favored the plaintiff.
• In environmental law/toxic tort cases, there was 1 grant of a petition to review agency action. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff challenger.

Importance of oral argument?

• In March 2026, there were 40 decisions resulting from orally argued cases: 25 were fully affirmed; 2 were only partially affirmed, but partially reversed or vacated; 4 were fully reversed; 2 were denials of mandamus; 4 were fully vacated; 1 was a denial of a petition for agency review; and 1 was a grant of a petition for agency review. So, decisions in March from the orally argued cases resulted in a 70% full-affirmance rate (counting full affirmances, mandamus denials, and denials of petitions for review of agency orders). 25 of the March decisions from orally argued cases favored the defendant/state (civil defendants and state actors, including criminal prosecution); while 15 favored the plaintiff/non-state.
• In the 17 March decisions where oral argument was withdrawn after initially being granted, 16 resulted in full affirmances; and 1 was a partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; for a 94.1% full-affirmance rate for cases initially ordered for oral argument but then not orally argued. 14 of those oral-argument-withdrawn decisions favored the defendant/state; while 3 favored the plaintiff/non-state.
• In the 191 March decisions that were never ordered for oral argument, 169 were full affirmances; 4 were full reversals; 1 was a denial of mandamus; 3 were fully vacated; 12 were denials of petitions for review of BIA orders; 1 was a grant of a petition for review of a BIA order; and 1 was a grant of a petition for review of other agency action; for a 95.3% full-affirmance rate. 180 of the no-oral-argument decisions favored the defendant/state; and 11 favored the plaintiff/non-state.

How much law is being made?

• Of the 236 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in March 2026, 40 were designated for publication. 25 of those were full affirmances; 2 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 4 were full reversals; 2 were mandamus denials; 4 were full vacaturs; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of an agency decision; and 2 were grants of petitions for review of agency action.
• 196 of the March opinions were unpublished, including 187 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 3 full reversals; 3 full vacaturs; 12 denials/dismissals of petitions to review BIA orders; and 1 grant of a petition for review of a BIA order.

Who was doing what on the Court?

Who was the busiest, in that they were on the most panels issuing opinions in March? (Judges Jones and Haynes, at 45 each). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judge Higginson, with 9). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judge Oldham, with 5). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judge Haynes, with 2). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (205, with 199 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 Higginson, with 14). 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			7	13
Jones	45	43	3		1 (+1 w/o op.)	9	35
Smith	33	33	6			13	20
Stewart	34	33	2			6	28
Richman	36	35	1		1	4	32
Southwick	36	34		1	1	4	32
Haynes	45	43			2	7	38
Graves	33	32	2	1		5	28
Higginson	40	39	8		1	14	26
Willett	42	42		2		4	38
Ho	41	41		1		6	35
Duncan	35	35	4			7	28
Engelhardt	34	34	2			5	29
Oldham	37	37		5		6	31
Wilson	35	35	1			7	28
Douglas	35	33			1	4	31
Ramirez	40	39				4	36
Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation	5	5	1	1		3	2
King	30	29			1	2	28
Higginbotham	30	30	1			1	29
Davis	12	12	1			2	10
Wiener	23	23	1	1		8	15
Barksdale	5	5				1	4
Clement	15	15				2	13
Unattributed/ Clerk
per curiam			205			6	199

Conclusions? Most decisions in March, as always, were unanimous, with 8 dissents and 12 concurrences out of 236 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judges King, Higginbotham, and Wiener 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 March was from Chief Judge Elrod.

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