Ms. Maggie McGinnis reviews “Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court”

When I published Some summer 2026 reading suggestions…and more! I said popular Lawfire^® contributor Maggie McGinnis would be writing a review of Sarah Isgur’s new book, Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court. Today Maggie shares her always-interesting insights with us!

Last Branch Standing

Reviewed by Maggie McGinnis

            Sarah Isgur’s new book, Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court, is a powerful response to the contemporary political narrative that casts the Supreme Court as a mere political tool. Drawing on her experience working in all three branches of government, Isgur takes readers inside the Supreme Court, humanizes the justices, and argues that politics is about outcomes; the law must be about process.

            The pithiness and humor that made Isgur’s Advisory Opinions podcast such a success were on display throughout the book. A short note for readers: last summer, I worked as an Editorial Intern at The Dispatch, which owns her podcast. While I did not work directly for Isgur, I was fortunate to interact with her on occasion.

          She has no idea I am writing this review, but I should acknowledge my bias for both her wit and her commentary. It is hard not to appreciate someone who spends three hours talking law and life with a cohort of interns over lunch at Zaytinya.

            Best understood as an accessible dive into the court rather than a politically neutral commentary on the judiciary, Part I explores what it means to be a justice on the Roberts Court. Isgur challenges the familiar left-right framework for understanding the justices, arguing instead that the Court is better understood as “3-3-3.” In her telling, the justices are plotted along an x-axis running from conservative to liberal and along a y-axis measuring the degree to which they prioritize institutional concerns and the Court’s long-term legitimacy.

          My favorite section of Part I reveals the lives of the nine justices on a personal level and breaks down the barriers the public faces to understanding what happens at One First Street NE. Isgur profiles the justices beyond ideological avatars. Want to know which justice worked as a bouncer? Or why she famously dubbed one of them as the Court’s “YOLO” justice?

          She explains why Justice Thomas is the justice you’d most want as a mentor, Justice Jackson is the justice you’d most want to see a musical with, and Justice Kagan is the justice you’d most want as a ‘bestie.’ The result is a portrait of the Court that goes deeper than much of the ‘fast-food political punditry’ offered today.

          Part II dives into the why of the Supreme Court, exploring the history of the Constitution and the Court and offering an incredibly compelling account of why the Court, as an institution, is the way it is today. Isgur’s take can be summarized in four words: Congress, do your job.

          Part III addresses the how, moving more heavily into the y-axis and offering Isgur’s recommendations for fixing things. I especially liked the idea of an enforceable ethics code, allowing credentialed reporters access to opinions one hour before public release, and halting the forum shopping.

          Isgur offers several salient takeaways. Political disagreement is not the same thing as a constitutional crisis. In the law, there should be no exception to a sound process. If the public becomes convinced the judicial system is doing nothing more than politics, it risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy (legitimacy will not spontaneously reappear when a more favorable side is in charge again).

          And, finally, more people should read—yes, actually read—the entirety of the Supreme Court’s decisions. Why? Isgur believes that the more of us who read smart, thoughtful intellectuals, the more we will see that we all want the same thing—a more equal America. We are arguing about how to get there.

          Lawfire readers may find themselves wanting more discussion of military and national security cases, and I occasionally wished Isgur would press the justices more aggressively on the tensions and inconsistencies within their jurisprudence. But, particularly valuable for students, Isgur provides an appendix on why not to go to law school, which challenges aspiring law students to consider whether it’s the right fit before committing.

          She also makes a case for young people to stick their necks out in a world of cancel culture, encouraging students to hold their beliefs with conviction but not certainty. Her advice boils down to this. Have the courage to be honest about what you believe, even when doing so is unpopular or carries personal costs, but have the humility to change course when new evidence presents itself.

          All in all, The Last Branch Standing is a shockingly entertaining read. Isgur’s sections on dense subjects like judicial philosophies and on whether originalism can survive populism feel as engaging as a text exchange with a good friend. As many listeners already know from her podcast, she has an uncanny ability to make incredibly complicated jurisprudential topics understandable to a 21-year-old undergraduate (meaning just about anyone) without sacrificing the nuance that makes them worth discussing in the first place.

About the Author:

Maggie McGinnis is a Robertson Scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University, where she is pursuing degrees in political science and sociology with a minor in conflict management. This summer, she worked as an intern at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. At Duke, she is the Co-President of the Justice Project and served as the captain of the moot court team. When she’s not writing, she enjoys teaching yoga and exploring the outdoors through hiking, kayaking, and running.

The views expressed by guest authors do not necessarily reflect my views or those of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, or Duke University. (See also here).

Remember what we like to say on Lawfire^®: gather the facts, examine the law, evaluate the arguments – and then decide for yourself!