Another Texas Supreme Court term is in the books, which means it’s time for our annual look at the numbers.
In the 2025–2026 term, the Texas Supreme Court again kept pace with the U.S. Supreme Court, hearing argument in 64 cases and issuing decisions in all of them.
Most were the standard fare: petitions for review arising from the state courts of appeals, a few mandamus petitions, and one direct appeal from a trial court. Unlike last term, however, the Court did not hear argument in any cases certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The bottom line for this term: The odds continue to favor the petitioner once the Court grants review and sets argument. The Court affirmed 24.2 percent and reversed 75.8 percent of the cases in which the Court heard argument and issued a decision, pushing the affirmance rate down 3.5 percentage points from last term’s 27.7 percent.
We dig into those numbers below, looking at how many cases came from each Texas court of appeals, explaining how we calculated the Court’s overall affirmance and reversal rates, and examining which courts of appeals saw the most—and least—success on review.
Court-by-Court Breakdown
All but one of Texas’ 15 courts of appeals had cases argued before the Court this term. The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) retained its first-place ranking from last term for the most cases before the Court, although it shared that distinction this term with the Third Court of Appeals (Austin). Each had 11 cases argued. By contrast, the Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) had no cases before the Court this term.
Below is the count of argued cases from each court of appeals:
- First Court of Appeals (Houston): 4
- Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth): 5
- Third Court of Appeals (Austin): 11
- Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio): 8
- Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas): 11
- Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana): 0
- Seventh Court of Appeals (Amarillo): 2
- Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso): 3
- Ninth Court of Appeals (Beaumont): 1
- Tenth Court of Appeals (Waco): 1
- Eleventh Court of Appeals (Eastland): 1
- Twelfth Court of Appeals (Tyler): 1
- Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi–Edinburg): 9
- Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston): 5
- Fifteenth Court of Appeals (limited statewide jurisdiction): 1
The Court also heard argument in a direct appeal from the 261st District Court in Travis County, reversing that court. And unlike last term, when the Court heard five cases certified to it by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Court heard no certified cases this term.
Affirmance and Reversal Rates
Now to the outcomes: How often did the Supreme Court affirm, how often did it reverse, and how did each court of appeals fare? We used the same methodology as last term, limiting the dataset to argued and decided cases arising from Texas state courts, excluding those resolved on the briefing alone. That parameter keeps the statistics centered on cases that genuinely inform a litigant’s odds once the Court agrees to hear argument.
That leaves 64 cases for the 2025–2026 term. For scoring purposes, reversals include both vacaturs and grants of mandamus relief in cases where a party initially sought relief in the court of appeals. Affirmances include denials of mandamus relief in cases where a party initially sought relief in the court of appeals. Cases whose judgments were reversed or affirmed only in part were scored as ties, each side receiving half a point—this includes cases in which the Court reversed on every issue presented for review, but the parties left other portions of the court of appeals’ judgment unchallenged.
And, although a few cases this term were consolidated for argument and opinion, we counted each one individually in our calculations. We do so to better capture the odds of success for an individual petition once granted.
With that framework in place, the Court overall affirmed in 24.2 percent of cases and reversed in 75.8 percent. Those rates varied across the individual courts of appeals:
- First Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 0% (0 out of 4)
- Reversed: 100% (4 out of 4)
- Second Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 10% (0.5 out of 5)
- Reversed: 90% (4.5 out of 5)
- Third Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 40.9% (4.5 out of 11)
- Reversed: 59.1% (6.5 out of 11)
- Fourth Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 31.3% (2.5 out of 8)
- Reversed: 68.7% (5.5 out of 8)
- Fifth Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 31.8% (3.5 out of 11)
- Reversed: 68.2% (7.5 out of 11)
- Seventh Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 25% (0.5 out of 2)
- Reversed: 75% (1.5 out of 2)
- Eighth Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 0% (0 out of 3)
- Reversed: 100% (3 out of 3)
- Ninth Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 0% (0 out of 1)
- Reversed: 100% (1 out of 1)
- Tenth Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 0% (0 out of 1)
- Reversed: 100% (1 out of 1)
- Eleventh Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 0% (0 out of 1)
- Reversed: 100% (1 out of 1)
- Twelfth Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 0% (0 out of 1)
- Reversed: 100% (1 out of 1)
- Thirteenth Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 16.7% (1.5 out of 9)
- Reversed: 83.3% (7.5 out of 9)
- Fourteenth Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 40% (2 out of 5)
- Reversed: 60% (3 out of 5)
- Fifteenth Court of Appeals:
- Affirmed: 50% (0.5 out of 1)
- Reversed: 50% (0.5 out of 1)
Key Trends and Year-Over-Year Swings
So the headline remains familiar: It is better to be the petitioner than the respondent once the Court grants review. That was even more true this term, when the Court’s overall affirmance rate fell 3.5 percentage points.
This term also gave us our first data point from the new Fifteenth Court of Appeals. The statewide court, which began hearing cases in September 2024, had its first case reviewed by the Texas Supreme Court.
The result was mixed: The Supreme Court agreed that the Fifteenth Court lacked jurisdiction over a premature appeal but concluded that it could have taken steps to secure appellate jurisdiction rather than simply dismissing the case. The Court then treated the State’s petition for review as a mandamus petition and granted relief. Under our methodology, that produces a split result—and, technically, puts the Fifteenth Court atop the rankings with a 50 percent affirmance rate.
Among courts with more substantial dockets, the Third Court of Appeals (Austin) and Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) posted comparatively strong results, both coming in at about 40 percent affirmed. The Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso), by contrast, was affirmed in none of its three cases, down sharply from a 35.7 percent affirmance rate across seven cases last term.
But the biggest year-over-year swing belonged to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi–Edinburg). Last term, it led all courts of appeals with a 75 percent affirmance rate across four cases. This term, that figure fell to 16.7 percent across nine argued cases. The Third Court of Appeals (Austin) moved in precisely the opposite direction, climbing from an 8.3 percent affirmance rate across six cases last term to 40.9 percent across 11 cases this term.
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas), meanwhile, held notably steady. Despite again making up one of the Court’s heaviest argued dockets, its affirmance rate barely moved—from 29.2 percent across 12 cases last term to 31.8 percent across 11 cases this term.
What to Watch: A New Merits Regime
The more interesting question may be what happens next. The upcoming term will be the first conducted entirely under the Court’s new merits regime. In January 2026, the court changed its rules to grant review and set cases for argument based on the petition, rather than waiting for full merits briefing before deciding whether to hear the case.
Whether that procedural change affects these numbers is something we’ll be watching closely—and ready to analyze in next year’s review.
Allyson N. Ho is a partner in the Dallas office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and co-chair of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law practice group.
Bradley G. Hubbard is a partner in the Dallas office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and member of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law practice group.
Elizabeth A. Kiernan is a senior associate in the Dallas office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and member of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law practice group.
Benjamin Wilson, Stephen Hammer, and Arjun Ogale also contributed to this article.