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 September 2026 statistics are based on 201 total opinions released by the Court (57 fewer than August’s near-record level and more along the lines of a normal month):
Where the appeals are coming from
- In September 2026, the Middle District of Louisiana and the Southern District of Mississippi both had perfect affirmance rates, with 2 affirmances of decisions from the M.D. La. and 7 from the S.D. Miss.
- The Northern District of Texas was the district with the most decisions originating from there in September, 52 total decisions. From the district, 48 of those were full affirmances or appeal dismissals; 2 were full reversals; and 2 were full vacaturs.
- From the Southern District of Texas, 37 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 was a partial reversal/partial affirmance; 1 was a full reversal; and 4 were full vacaturs.
- From the Western District of Texas, 35 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 were full reversals; and 1 was an order for en banc rehearing.
- From the Eastern District of Texas, 12 decisions were full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 was a full reversal.
- From the Eastern District of Louisiana there were 10 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial reversal/vacatur/partial affirmance; and 1 was a full vacatur.
- From the Western District of Louisiana, there were 12 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 1 full reversal; and 1 full vacatur.
- From the Northern District of Mississippi, there were 3 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 partial reversal/vacatur/partial affirmance.
- On petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeal, there were 9 denials/dismissals of petitions for review.
- On petitions for review of other agency actions, there were 3 grants; and 2 denials.
What the appeals are about, and who they benefit
- The largest number of appeals were of criminal conviction and/or sentencing issues. 96 resulted in full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 4 full vacaturs; 1 grant of en banc rehearing; and 1 grant of a petition for agency review. 97 of the dispositions favored the prosecution, and 5 favored the defendant.
- In immigration cases, there were 9 denials of petitions to review BIA orders. All 9 dispositions favored the government.
- In prisoner suits, there were 7 full affirmances/appeal dismissals. All 7 dispositions favored the government defendants.
- In commercial – civil cases (including insurance disputes), there were 17 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 full reversal; and 1 full vacatur. 15 of the dispositions favored the defendant, and 4 favored the plaintiff.
- In civil rights/constitutional claims (non-prisoner-suits), there were 22 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 partial reversal/vacatur/partial affirmance; 2 full reversals; and 2 full vacaturs. 21 of the dispositions favored the defendant; and 6 favored the plaintiff.
- In employment/labor law cases, there were 8 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 1 full reversal; 1 denial of a petition for agency review; and 2 grants of petitions for agency review. 8 of the dispositions favored an employer; and 4 favored employees.
- In qualified immunity cases, there was 1 partial reversal/vacatur/partial affirmance; and 1 full reversal. 1 disposition favored the government defendant; and 1 favored the plaintiff.
- In bankruptcy cases, there were 4 full affirmances. 2 dispositions favored the creditor; and 2 disposition favored the debtor.
- In habeas corpus/other post-conviction-relief cases, there were 5 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; and 1 full reversal. 5 dispositions favored the government defendant; and 1 favored the petitioner.
- In personal torts cases, there were 2 full affirmances; 1 partial reversal/vacatur/partial affirmance; and 1 full reversal. 2 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 was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
- In environmental law/toxic torts cases, there was 1 full reversal; 1 full vacatur; and 1 grant of a petition for agency review. 1 disposition favored the defendant; and 2 favored the plaintiffs.
- In products liability cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
- In maritime law cases, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
- In administrative law appeals, there was 1 full affirmance. That 1 disposition favored the defendant.
Importance of oral argument?
- In September 2026, there were 38 decisions resulting from orally argued cases: 24 were fully affirmed; 3 were only partially affirmed, but partially reversed or vacated; 6 were fully reversed; 2 were fully vacated; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of an agency order; and 2 were grants of petitions for agency review. So, decisions in September from the orally argued cases resulted in a 65.79% full-affirmance rate (counting full affirmances and denials of petitions for review of agency orders). 24 of the September decisions from orally argued cases favored the defendant/state (civil defendants and state actors, including criminal prosecution); while 14 favored the plaintiff/non-state.
- In the 11 September decisions where oral argument was withdrawn after initially being granted, 7 resulted in full affirmances; and 4 were full vacaturs; for a 63.64% full-affirmance rate for cases initially ordered for oral argument but then not orally argued. 7 of those oral-argument-withdrawn decisions favored the defendant/state; while 4 favored the plaintiff/non-state.
- In the 152 September decisions that were never ordered for oral argument, 135 were full affirmances; 1 was a partial reversal; 2 were full reversals; 2 were fully vacated; 1 was an order of en banc rehearing; 9 were denials of petitions for review of BIA orders; 1 was a denial of other agency review; and 1 was a grant of other agency review; for a 96.03% full-affirmance rate. 142 of the no-oral-argument decisions favored the defendant/state; and 10 favored the plaintiff/non-state.
How much law is being made?
- Of the 201 opinions released by the 5th Circuit in September 2026, 32 were designated for publication. 19 of those were full affirmances; 1 were partial affirmances/partial reversals/vacaturs; 6 were full reversals; 1 was a full vacatur; 1 was a grant of en banc rehearing; 1 was a denial of a petition for review of a BIA order; and 3 were grants of petitions for review of agency actions.
- 169 of the September opinions were unpublished, including 147 full affirmances/appeal dismissals; 3 partial affirmance/partial reversal/vacatur; 2 full reversals; 7 full vacaturs; 8 denials/dismissals of petitions to review BIA orders; and 2 denials of petitions for other agency review.
Who was doing what on the Court?
Who was the busiest, in that they were on the most panels issuing opinions in September? (Judge Jones, at 47). Who was the busiest writer, authoring the most attributed opinions (including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions)? (Judge Haynes, with 7). Who concurred the most in separate opinions? (Judges Ho, Oldham, Wilson, and King, with 1 each). Who authored the most dissenting or dubitante opinions? (Judge Haynes, with all 7 of her attributed decisions being dissents, a new record monthly dissent total for the past six years since I started tracking this). How many opinions did the Court issue per curiam, with no author listed? (172, with 169 of those unpublished; but 3 of those 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? (Judges Stewart and Willett, with 8 each). 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 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 5 | ||
| Jones | 47 | 47 | 2 | 4 | 43 | ||
| Smith | 35 | 35 | 4 | 8 | 27 | ||
| Stewart | 38 | 37 | 8 | 30 | |||
| Richman | 33 | 33 | 1 | 2 | 31 | ||
| Southwick | 36 | 36 | 1 | 5 | 31 | ||
| Haynes | 34 | 27 | 7 | 4 | 30 | ||
| Graves | 27 | 27 | 3 | (1 w/o op.) | 7 | 20 | |
| Higginson | 45 | 44 | 4 | 7 | 38 | ||
| Willett | 38 | 37 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 30 | |
| Ho | 36 | 36 | 1 | 4 | 32 | ||
| Duncan | 25 | 25 | 2 | 4 | 21 | ||
| Engelhardt | 30 | 30 | 2 | 5 | 25 | ||
| Oldham | 29 | 26 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 22 |
| Wilson | 33 | 33 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 26 | |
| Douglas | 23 | 22 | (1 w/o op.) | 3 | 20 | ||
| Ramirez | 32 | 31 | 4 | 28 | |||
| Dist. Ct. Judge sitting by designation | |||||||
| King | 21 | 21 | 1 | 3 | 18 | ||
| Higginbotham | 11 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 8 | |
| Davis | 9 | 9 | 9 | ||||
| Wiener | 7 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 3 | ||
| Barksdale | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Clement | 10 | 10 | 3 | 7 | |||
| Unattributed/ Clerk | |||||||
| per curiam | 172 (3 not “true” per curia) | 3 | 169 |
Conclusions? Most decisions in September, as always, were unanimous, with 13 dissents and 6 concurrences out of 201 opinions. Among senior-status judges, Judge King had the heaviest participation in panels. Meanwhile, among active-status judges, the lightest production in September (by participation on panels releasing opinions), other than Chief Judge Elrod, who carries the administrative load of being Chief, was Judge Douglas, with 23.
Wrap it all together, and an opinion in September 2026 was most likely to be an unpublished per curiam affirming a criminal decision from the Northern District of Texas, with Judges Jones, Higginson, and Stewart or Willett on the panel.
