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 July 2026 statistics are based on 200 total opinions released by the Court (24 fewer than in June):

Where the appeals are coming from

• In July 2026, the Middle District of Louisiana, Southern District of Mississippi, and the Eastern District of Texas had perfect affirmance rates, with 2 opinions originating in the M.D. La. resulting in affirmances or appeal dismissals (plus one published denial of rehearing en banc); 7 opinions from the S.D. Miss. resulting in affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 19 opinion originating in the E.D. Tex. resulting in affirmances/appeal dismissals (plus one order denying a motion); additionally, 2 decisions from the U.S. Tax Court were affirmed; and all 8 petitions for review of decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals were denied.
• The Northern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in July, 42 total decisions. From the district, 39 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 1 was a partial reversal/partial affirmance/vacatur; 1 was a full reversal; and 1 was a full vacatur.
• From the Western District of Texas, 35 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 was a partial reversal/partial affirmance/vacatur; 1 was a full reversal; 2 were full vacaturs; and 1 was a an order of en banc rehearing.
• From the Southern District of Texas, 32 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 were full reversals; 2 were full vacaturs; 2 were certifications to state supreme courts; 1 was a published order denying en banc rehearing; and 1 was an order of en banc rehearing.
• From the Eastern District of Louisiana there were 6 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; and 2 full vacaturs.
• From the Western District of Louisiana, there were 17 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 order of mandamus; and 1 full vacatur..
• From the Northern District of Mississippi, there were 3 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal.
• On petitions for review of other agency actions, there were 3 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. 87 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 2 full reversals; 4 full vacaturs; and 1 denial of a motion. 90 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 5 favored the defendant.
• In immigration cases, there were 2 full affirmances; 1 order of en banc rehearing; and 8 denials of petitions to review BIA orders. 10 dispositions favored the government, and 1 favored the immigrant.
• In prisoner suits, there were 6 full affirmances/appeal dismissals. All 6 dispositions favored the government defendants.
• In commercial – civil cases, there were 17 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1full reversal; and 2 certifications to state supreme courts. 13 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 7 favored the plaintiff.
• In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 11 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 2 partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 1 full reversal; 1 grant of mandamus; 1 full vacatur; 1 published denial of en banc rehearing; and 1 order of en banc rehearing. 13 of the dispositions favored the defendant; and 5 favored the plaintiff.
• In employment/labor law cases, there were 7 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 full vacatur; 3 denials of petitions for review of agency decisions; 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 6 full affirmances; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; and 1 full reversal. All 8 dispositions favored the government defendant.
• In bankruptcy cases, there were 4 full affirmances. 3 dispositions favored the creditor; and 1 disposition favored the debtor.
• In habeas corpus/other post-conviction-relief cases, there were 11 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full vacatur. 11 dispositions favored the government defendant; and 1 favored the petitioner.
• In personal torts cases, there were 2 full affirmances; 1 full reversal; 1 full vacatur; and 1 published denial of en banc rehearing. 3 dispositions favored the defendant; and 2 favored the plaintiff.
• In arbitration cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In voting/election law cases, there 2 full affirmances. Both dispositions favored the defendant.
• In tax law cases, there were 2 full affirmances. Both dispositions favored the government.
• In products liability cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In healthcare law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In social security cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the benefits denial.
• In environmental law/toxic torts cases, there was 1 denial of a petition for review of agency action. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
• In international law cases, there were 2 full affirmances. Both dispositions favored the defendant.

Importance of oral argument?

• In July 2026, there were 41 decisions resulting from orally argued cases: 23 were fully affirmed; 3 were only partially affirmed, but partially reversed or vacated; 3 were fully reversed; 5 were fully vacated; 2 resulted in certifications to state supreme courts; 1 resulted in a published denial of en banc rehearing; 2 resulted in orders of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of an agency order; and 1 was a grant of a petition for agency review. So, decisions in July from the orally argued cases resulted in a 58.54% full-affirmance rate (counting full affirmances and denials of petitions for review of agency orders). 26 of the July decisions from orally argued cases favored the defendant/state (civil defendants and state actors, including criminal prosecution); while 12 favored the plaintiff/non-state.
• In the 7 July decisions where oral argument was withdrawn after initially being granted, 6 resulted in full affirmances; 1 was a published denial of en banc rehearing; for a 100% 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/state; while 2 favored the plaintiff/non-state.
• In the 152 July decisions that were never ordered for oral argument, 133 were full affirmances; 1 was a partial reversal; 3 were full reversals; 1 was an order of mandamus; 3 were fully vacated; 8 were denials of petitions for review of BIA orders; 2 were denials of petitions for review of other agency decisions; and 1 was a denial of a motion; for a 94.7% full-affirmance rate (not counting motion denials in that calculation). 141 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 200 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in July 2026, 41 were designated for publication. 20 of those were full affirmances; 3 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 3 were full reversals; 1 was a grant of mandamus; 6 were full vacaturs; 2 were certifications to state supreme courts; 2 were published denials of en banc rehearing; 2 were grants of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of an agency order; and 1 was a grant of a petition for review of an agency action.
• 160 of the July opinions were unpublished, including 142 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 3 full reversals; 2 full vacaturs; 8 denials/dismissals of petitions to review BIA orders; 2 denials of petitions for review of another agency order; and 1 was a 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 July? (Judge Wilson, at 51). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judge Willett, with 8). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judge Higginson, with 2, plus one more concurrence without opinion). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judges Smith, Haynes, and Ho, with 2 each). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (160, with 157 of those unpublished; but 3 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 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	16	16	2			9	7
Jones	29	27	2		1	6	23
Smith	34	33	3		2	14	20
Stewart	31	29	1		1	6	25
Richman	34	33	1			7	27
Southwick	35	35	4			13	22
Haynes	33	31			2	8	25
Graves	30	28	3	2		8	22
Higginson	39	37	3	2 (+1 w/o op.)	1	11	28
Willett	30	29	6	1	1	11	19
Ho	29	27		1	2	7	22
Duncan	43	42	3			7	36
Engelhardt	24	23	1			5	19
Oldham	38	37	1			7	31
Wilson	51	50	1		1	11	40
Douglas	31	29	1		1	6	25
Ramirez	36	34	2		1	9	27
Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation
King	16	16	1			4	12
Higginbotham	16	16	1			7	9
Davis	16	16	1			1	15
Wiener	13	13				1	12
Barksdale	1	1					1
Clement	5	5	1			2	3
Unattributed/ Clerk
per curiam			160			3	157

Conclusions? Most decisions in July, as always, were unanimous, with 13 dissents and 6 concurrences out of 200 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judges King, Higginbotham, and Davis had the heaviest participation in panels. Meanwhile, among active-status judges, the lightest production in July (not counting Chief Judge Elrod, who also carries a heavy administrative load) was from Judge Engelhardt.

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