Take the Fifth

I report after each month on interesting statistics from the data I 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.) I aggregate that–all of which provides useful insights into the inner workings of the Court, the relative success of various appeals, and more. The June 2026 statistics are based on 224 total opinions released by the Court (23 more than in May):

Where the appeals are coming from

• In June 2026, the Middle District of Louisiana and the Northern District of Mississippi had perfect affirmance rates, with 2 opinions originating in the M.D. La. resulting in affirmances or appeal dismissals; and 4 opinions from the N.D. Miss. resulting in affirmances/appeal dismissals; additionally, 3 decisions from the U.S. Tax Court were affirmed.
• The Northern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in May, 56 total decisions. From the district, 49 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 2 were partial reversal/partial affirmance/vacatur; 1 was a full reversal; 2 were full vacaturs; and 1 was an order of en banc rehearing.
• From the Western District of Texas, 44 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 was a partial reversal/partial affirmance/vacatur; 2 were full reversals; 1 was a full vacatur; and 1 was a published denial of en banc rehearing.
• From the Southern District of Texas, 36 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 6 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 3 were full reversals; and 1 was a published order denying en banc rehearing.
• From decisions from the Eastern District of Texas there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 2 full vacaturs.
• From the Eastern District of Louisiana there were 9 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
• From the Western District of Louisiana, there were 13 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs.
• From the Southern District of Mississippi, there were 6 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs.
• On petitions for review of other agency actions, there were 2 denials; and 1 grant.

What the appeals are about, and who they benefit

• The largest number of appeals were of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 117 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 1 full vacatur. 117 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 4 favored the defendant.
• In immigration cases, there were 16 denials of petitions to review BIA orders; and 1 grant. 16 dispositions favored the government, and 1 favored the immigrant.
• In prisoner suits, there were 5 full affirmances/appeal dismissals. All 5 dispositions favored the government defendants.
• In commercial – civil cases, there were 16 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 5 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 3 full reversals. 15 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 9 favored the plaintiff.
• In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 10 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; and 2 orders of en banc rehearing. 13 of the dispositions favored the defendant; and 2 favored the plaintiff.
• In employment/labor law cases, there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; and 1 grant of a petition for review of an agency decision. 8 of the dispositions favored an employer; and 3 favored employees.
• In qualified immunity cases, there were 5 full affirmances; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 2 full reversals; and 1 full vacatur. 5 dispositions favored the government defendant; and 5 favored the plaintiff.
• In administrative law cases, there was 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 grant of a petition to review an agency decision. Both dispositions favored the plaintiff/challenger.
• In bankruptcy cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the creditor.
• In habeas corpus/other post-conviction-relief cases, there were 3 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full vacatur. 3 dispositions favored the government defendant; and 1 favored the petitioner.
• In personal torts cases, there were 4 full affirmances; and 2 full vacaturs. 2 dispositions favored the defendant; and 4 favored the plaintiff.
• In arbitration cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In voting/election law cases, there was 1 published denial of en banc rehearing. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff/challenger.
• In tax law cases, there were 3 full affirmances. All 3 dispositions favored the government.
• In products liability cases, there was 1 full reversal. That 1 disposition favored the plaintiff.
• In maritime law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.

Importance of oral argument?

• In June 2026, there were 47 decisions resulting from orally argued cases: 27 were fully affirmed; 9 were only partially affirmed, but partially reversed or vacated; 6 were fully reversed; 1 resulted in a published denial of en banc rehearing; 1 was a grant of a petition for review of a BIA order; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of another agency order; and 2 were grants of petitions for agency review. So, decisions in June from the orally argued cases resulted in a 60.9% full-affirmance rate (counting full affirmances and denials of petitions for review of agency orders). 29 of the June decisions from orally argued cases favored the defendant/state (civil defendants and state actors, including criminal prosecution); while 18 favored the plaintiff/non-state.
• In the 15 June decisions where oral argument was withdrawn after initially being granted, 11 resulted in full affirmances; 1 was a partial reversal; 1 was a full reversal; 1 was a full vacatur; and 1 was a denial of a petition for review of a BIA order; for an 80% full-affirmance rate for cases initially ordered for oral argument but then not orally argued. 8 of those oral-argument-withdrawn decisions favored the defendant/state; while 7 favored the plaintiff/non-state.
• In the 165 June decisions that were never ordered for oral argument, 139 were full affirmances; 3 were partial reversals; 1 was a full reversal; 4 were fully vacated; 2 were orders of en banc rehearing; 15 were denials of petitions for review of BIA orders; and 1 was a grant of a motion; for a 93.9% full-affirmance rate (not counting motion grants in that calculation). 156 of the no-oral-argument decisions favored the defendant/state; and 9 favored the plaintiff/non-state.

How much law is being made?

• Of the 224 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in June 2026, 38 were designated for publication. 19 of those were full affirmances; 4 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 6 were full reversals; 2 were full vacaturs; 1 was a published denial of en banc rehearing; 2 were grants of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of an agency order; 2 were grants of petitions for review of agency actions; and 1 was a grant of a motions.
• 186 of the June opinions were unpublished, including 155 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 9 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 2 full reversals; 3 full vacaturs; 16 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 June? (Judge Willett, at 64). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judge Higginson, with 6). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judge Douglas, with 2). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judges Graves and Oldham, with 1 each). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (182, with 180 of those unpublished; but 2 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, with 11). 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	19	19	2	1		7	12
Jones	36	35	3			5	31
Smith	27	26	4			11	16
Stewart	30	30	1			3	27
Richman	38	38				3	35
Southwick	46	46	2			8	38
Haynes	24	24		(1 w/o op.)		5	18
Graves	28	27	3		1	7	21
Higginson	33	33	6			9	24
Willett	64	63	3			10	54
Ho	26	25	1			3	23
Duncan	35	34	3			5	30
Engelhardt	32	31				8	24
Oldham	28	27			1	3	25
Wilson	43	42	3			9	34
Douglas	38	37	2	2		7	31
Ramirez	26	26	1			4	22
Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation
King	26	26				3	23
Higginbotham	15	15	1			2	13
Davis	15	15					15
Wiener	26	26				4	22
Barksdale	1	1					1
Clement	24	24	3			6	18
Unattributed/ Clerk
per curiam			182			2	180

Conclusions? Most decisions in June, as always, were unanimous, with 2 dissents and 4 concurrences out of 224 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judges King, Wiener, and Clement 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 May (not counting Chief Judge Elrod, who also carries a heavy administrative load) was from Judge Haynes.

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