Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court

by Sarah Isgur

A myth-busting glimpse into the inner workings of the Supreme Court in the “Roberts era,” revealing what we get wrong about the nine justices (and what they eat for lunch) and the right way to fix a Court in crisis—from the popular ABC news pundit and witty co-host of the top legal podcast in the US

Most people get the Supreme Court all wrong. That includes Washington “insiders.” A smattering of high-profile decisions have popularized a simplistic idea of the Court and its nine justices. Yes, six of them were appointed by Republicans, and only three were appointed by a Democratic president. So, how does that 6-3 conservative majority explain why liberal Elena Kagan and conservative Samuel Alito agreed with each other over 60 percent of the time in a recent term? Or why the court threw shade at Florida’s attempt to ban drag shows?

To truly appreciate the nine justices of the Supreme Court, argues Sarah Isgur, you have to look beyond political affiliation. That’s only part of the story—the “X-Axis”. The wisest court insiders know that they there is a whole other measuring stick—the “Y-Axis.” On this spectrum, the justices span from order-loving institutionalists to true chaos agents. The Y-Axis affects which cases the court takes, when they take them, how they get decided. And, when you appreciate its nuances, you’ll see the court looks a lot more like 3-3-3 than 6-3.

The ultimate insider, Isgur takes readers on a deep dive inside the Supreme how cases land at the court’s doorstep, which justices attend clerk happy hours (and which ones even bother showing up to the office), why conservatives already have buyer’s remorse about Amy Coney Barrett, and how the whole judiciary system is itself, well, kind of a constitutional anomaly. Blending irreverent humor and incisive commentary, Isgur goes behind the cloaks and robes—and shows us what we need to do to preserve the rule of law amid dicey times in this little self-governing experiment we’ve been running for the last 250 years.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Law, Government, Audiobook, American

416 pages, Hardcover

Published April 14, 2026

Reviews

[jrendocrine at least reading is good · Rating 2 out of 5]

Decided to listen because my podcast diet includes the legal scholar trio of Strict Scrutiny, who report at the moment of Supreme Court decisions, but rarely give much background/long view.

One quickly finds out that the author, Sarah Isgur joined the Federalist Society early on in her legal career. Thus she turns out to be pretty much an apologist for the current nine of the Supreme Court, in particular CT (apparently one must refer to them by their initials, this being Clarence Thomas), BT, SA and especially The Chief. So I’m like, okay, I can stand to hear the other side of the argument, and soldier on.

The problem is, however, that the book is disjointed and hard to follow. Isgur brings up legal cases heard by the SC, but why, and to what end, is largely obscure. You could fault me, and say I don’t understand the law (I. AM. NOT. A. LAWYER.), but I’m reading this book because I would like to understand more about the law. Isgur’s major contribution is, I understand, not seeing the SC as a politicized (swallow that one whole!) 6 to 3 court, but as a 3-3-3 court where each of the triplet can occasionally opine with one of the other triplets. Meh.

Early on she RATES the justices, current and in the past. So and so is the best, in the top 10, top 20. But never (ever) does she say what her rating is based on.

At this point I was so disturbed, and thinking maybe I just didn’t get it - so I listened to her pod (Advisory Opinions - corrected, thanks Chance below) from 4/21/26 on the Shadow Docket - commenting on the absolutely smash NYTimes reveal of how the shadow docket came to be. I was not impressed by Isgur's podcast: same reasoning - which basically is "I like conservatives". Oh and so sorry, SI, that everyone nowadays wants to be in the Federalist Society, so it isn’t special anymore.

Isgur spends the last 1/3ish of the book saying that we have to support the justices because they are doing the hard work and can’t get out and have any fun. Wah-wah, giving lectures, talking about interesting things, meeting brilliant people, I’m supposed to feel sorry for them? Try being a shoe salesman!

There is a lot of career counseling as to whether the reader should or should not go to law school. After all, everyone can’t have the great job she has, and might have to work for millions of $ for a corporate law firm. (Or you could make way less than 100K/year and be a public defender who works just as hard and actually helps people, but that’s just not an option for the Federalist minions.)

OK, this is sounding like a screed. I did learn a few things. I do agree on a few things (like all the clerks shouldn't be from the Ivy Leagues, or that being able to select your lower district court to get the best outcome isn't helping anyone).

I listened to the book: at 1.2x the author’s voice is nasal and irritating. She thinks she’s quite the wit (see subtitle: "A potentially surprising, occasionally WITTY journey inside today’s SC"), but I didn’t laugh once. Yes, the Strict Scrutiny lawyers can be annoying too, what with their Taylor Swift/Harry Potter/ manicures/etc, but they are incisive, whip smart, and very often darn funny and witty.

[Jennifer Knight · Rating 5 out of 5]

WOW! If you told me one of the most entertaining books I have read this year would be about the Supreme Court, I would not have believed it. I absolutely loved this book and listened to it on audio and fully plan to get it on Kindle to reread it. I learned a ton and laughed quite a bit as well. I think people who know very little about the Supreme Court as well as those who know a lot would equally find value.

[Lily Stanton]

Wasn’t really reading this with the desire to review. Just been interested in the Supreme Court lately so I’m reading one from the advisory opinions host and I’ll read one from a strict scrutiny host next.

[Alison Vaughan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thank goodness Sarah narrated the audiobook, it's like one long AO episode <3. Not thank goodness she released the pre-orders during exams—if I get a B in Remedies, it's her fault I was distracted by such a fun book

[Emma Blakemore · Rating 5 out of 5]

#processgirlinanoutcomesworld !!! (iykyk)

[Lu Sadler · Rating 2 out of 5]

Listening to the audio version. Could this woman be anymore condescending? When she tells you how Republican she is, believe her, because she is bound and determined to make a listener feel belittled and stupid. "He's Chiefy like that." Not cute, Ms. Isgur. Have not gotten to the part where she justifys giving Donald Trump inexcusible powers. Betting she does not cover it. Let me know if I am wrong because I don't think I can take her demeanor for much longer.

[Jacqueline Fish · Rating 5 out of 5]

Engaging, and enjoyable to read. I am not in the legal field, but this book made the Supreme Court feel accessible and inviting. It struck a balance between clarity and depth, allowing me to appreciate the ideas of this “branch” and its players without feeling overwhelmed (or bored). More than anything, it deepened my interest in the topic and felt like a partner inviting me to have fun and learn something new.

[Miguel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Takes a stand

Had to unsub from the AO pod due to Isgur and this book reminded me why. On style, I think if you placed Isgur and Jerusalem Demsas in a podcast booth both forced to drink from a keg of Red Bull one of their heads would explode due sheer excitedness - the energizer bunny voice is grating and if she had hired a professional voice reader and not tried her odd form of levity it might have been more tolerable. On substance, I don't know that I learned a great deal - perhaps that Isgur is not as doctrinaire on the law as I had assumed. Learned a little court history, probably more than I wanted to know about the justices, but rehash of general grievances on modern US Pol and overreliance on the court for what should otherwise be legislative measures was not that enlightening.

[Autumn · Rating 5 out of 5]

**I received an advance reader copy from the author**

Even if you don’t immediately find this subject appealing, I’m a firm believer that good writing makes any subject interesting, and Sarah Isgur accomplishes that with Last Branch Standing. This book is for anyone that should be more informed about the way our government—not just the judicial branch—functions today. And that is all of us! Her writing is a mix of Sarah Vowell and Mary Roach—witty, intelligent, and full of substance without being dense. I learned so much from this book that was immediately applicable to understanding today’s headlines and political climate. Buy it, read it, and get a copy for a friend so you can discuss!

[Michael K.]

As a regular listener of Advisory Opinions, I had assumed that this would be something of a rehash of points I had already heard on the podcast. I was half right. Many of the points are familiar, but this is no rehash. Rather, Isgur has organized her argument in such a way as to lead the reader step by step from the creation of the Supreme Court through it’s history, explaining it’s function and how that has evolved in response to changes in the Congress and the Executive Branch.

I was particularly interested in Isgur’s explanation of the consequences of ending the filibuster for confirmation of federal judges. It had seemed like a foolish move to me, but I hadn’t considered how damaging it could end up being for the court. Also, her discussion of how the justices determine whether to hear a case, and the effects of hearing fewer cases each term, were helpful in understanding this opaque process.

Although I listen to every episode of AO, I don’t have a law degree, or even a college degree. Neither is required to appreciate the arguments she lays out here. Most of the legal concepts and jargon are explained fully in the text, and there is a short glossary if you need it. All you need to bring to the book is an interest in the topic and the willingness to accept, just for the sake of argument, that none of the justices are villains. It’s not that kind of book.

[Caleb Woodring · Rating 5 out of 5]

Last Branch Standing by Sarah Isgur is a sharp, engaging, and surprisingly accessible look at one of the most complex institutions in American government. In just 300 pages, Isgur manages to break down not only the history of the Supreme Court of the United States, but also its inner workings and the philosophies that drive its justices.

What stands out most is her tone. She brings wit and clarity to a subject that often feels dense or overly technical. Rather than getting lost in legal jargon, she translates the Court’s processes and decisions into something readable and genuinely interesting.

This isn’t just a surface-level overview. Isgur connects personalities, legal philosophy, and institutional design in a way that helps you understand not just what the Court does, but how and why it operates the way it does.

By the end, you walk away with a much stronger grasp of the Supreme Court—and why it matters, especially in today’s political climate. In 2026, this feels like a must-read for anyone even remotely interested in politics.

A fantastic piece of work.

[Dan Filo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well Worth Your Time

So little about politics is readable these days so this book stands out. An interesting discussion of where we are today in politics, law, and governance. Isgur shines a light on what is not working and what might fix it. If you are open minded and care about our country, read this book.

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

I couldn't disagree more with Isgur's politics, but it was an entertaining read. Although conservative, she writes with verve and open-mindedness, and is a good teacher of constitutional-related law. My criticisms are as follows-- in her attempt to be witty and conversational, she dilutes the impact of her writing. The section about the current Supreme Court justices, " Most likely to ..." is too cute by half. Although she touches on Clarence Thomas's acceptance of gifts and Anita Hill's claims at his confirmation history, she writes, "...nobody has been able to point to a case from which he should have recused himself or a case in which he might have changed his vote." This is ridiculous. First, an ideologue does not have to change his vote if (s)he has a prenatural disposition to an outcome. Second, I am a physician, and major academic medical centers have banned drug representatives from even handing out pens bearing a drug's name because evidence has shown that gifts--the concept of reciprocity--have influenced physicians' prescribing patterns.

Isgur also brings relationships into her writing which impacts her judgment. She knows Brett Kavanaugh, and somehow feels the need to thread the needle by saying, "... I believe Blasey Ford was attacked by someone. I do not believe she remembers who did it. And I do not believe the person was Brett Kavanaugh." WTF? To snark back at her, allow me to quote her about Sam Alito, "Unlike many men, Justice Alito doesn't say, "They're my wife's cats." Humanizing him by relaying that Alito made U.S. marshals wait while trying to rescue a cat. Alito has no problems though throwing his wife under the bus when she flies her freak flags displaying her/his troglodyte political opinions.

Additionally, unwittingly, she sinks the whole premise of the Federalist Society and the supposed intellectual rigor of textualism, originalism, etc., when she labels it 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. This evolution is really a bias and similar to a living constitution--the idea that contemporary society should influence the interpretation of a law. Of course it should. If not, go back and treat your illness with blood letting based on the four humors. That said, the premise of an x-axis-- a judge's political leanings, and a y-axis-- whether a judge wants to preserve the credibility of the court by respecting precedent and garnering consensus is beautifully articulated.

In conclusion, this is an eminently readable and intelligently written book that should have trusted the reader to follow her arguments without a "Sex in the City" style that dilutes her argument. That said, although I don't agree with her politically, she is certainly an esteemed, articulate, lawyer with a gift of writing clearly and powerfully, but easily defeated in the court of a liberal Goodreads reviewer. Cheers!

[Mark Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

As I was chatting about this book with someone, I asked a question. "Would America be better off if everyone read this?" Her answer was, "YES!" I agree.

Granted, that could be true of many books, but Last Branch Standing is timely. Sarah Isgur's essential point is that only the judiciary is a functioning branch of government, performing something like its intended purpose and operating somewhere within its expected powers.

The implication is that the other branches--the executive and legislative--are dysfunctional. The executive is too powerful (for a host of reasons) and the legislature has just abdicated its role as the author of our laws. The Court is often left to clean up the mess as Congress delegates too much power and the executive tries to solve problems that require real laws as opposed to executive orders or agency rule-making.

Each partisan side blames the Court for standing in the gap, and its legitimacy hangs in the balance because it manages to frustrate everyone. Politicians make promises they can't keep legally and then critique the Court for enforcing the law.

American politics lives now on a knife's edge. Isgur's book is a timely plea for citizens to do better. In her mind, knowing how the Court works is the way to do that. For Isgur, and for me, the law and the Constitution are about process and not about outcomes or results. They set the rules of the game. We need to choose better players instead of demanding the referees/justices change the rules.

The book has so much more than this basic argument. Isgur provides a reasonable overview of the Court's history, its different interpretive eras and methods, and a great deal of insight into how the Supreme Court functions. She also provides lots of unusual background information, but it rarely feels trivial.

I do have some small beefs with the book. I think the book's organization is lacking. Some of the chapters are less coherent and more smashed together. I suspect this reflects three things. 1) The book was written and executed relatively quickly because it was timely, and this might be why it sometimes feels overstuffed. 2) Isgur wanted to write something more discursive than something purely analytical or argumentative. This makes it more accessible, but also strains the organization. 3) Isgur probably thinks inductively by nature. She pieces together lots of kinds of information. I think this increases the breadth and interest level, but it is also why sometimes it feels scattered.

Regardless, this is an excellent book. We have been blessed with two accessible "law" books during the past year. Justice Barrett's Listening to the Law and now Isgur's Last Branch Standing. Let's hope this is a trend and that more people will learn more about the judiciary, the Constitution, and the law. A civic revival born out of the law and Constitution would be most welcome.

[MICHEAL DOANE · Rating 5 out of 5]

Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court (Sarah Isgur, 2026) is an insider-informed, analytically structured examination of the modern U.S. Supreme Court under the Roberts era, designed to challenge simplified partisan interpretations of judicial behavior.

Sarah Isgur’s central contribution is a dual-axis interpretive model that reframes how the Court is commonly understood. Rather than treating justices as fixed ideological actors along a single liberal–conservative continuum, she introduces a second structural dimension, institutional temperament, that helps explain unexpected alignments, case selection behavior, and internal Court dynamics. This framework is used to reinterpret patterns that often appear inconsistent under standard ideological analysis.

The book is strongest when it moves away from anecdotal observation and into institutional explanation. It treats the Court not as a static ideological body, but as a complex decision-making system shaped by procedural incentives, internal norms, and strategic judicial behavior. This systems-oriented framing allows for a more granular understanding of why justices with opposing ideological reputations may frequently converge on outcomes.

Stylistically, the work combines explanatory legal analysis with accessible, occasionally irreverent commentary, which broadens its reach beyond strictly academic audiences. However, its most durable contribution lies in its attempt to normalize a more structural reading of judicial behavior, one that resists overreliance on partisan labeling.

Overall, the book occupies a space between legal journalism, institutional analysis, and political commentary, with particular relevance for readers interested in judicial behavior, constitutional structure, and the mechanics of high court decision-making.

[ManOfLaBook.com · Rating 5 out of 5]

For more reviews and bookish posts visit: https://www.ManOfLaBook.com

Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court by Sara Isgur attempts to explain the United States Supreme Court in an accessible, humanizing manner. Mrs. Isgur is the editor of SCOTUSblog, co-host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, and a familiar face as a TV pundit.

The book is fantastic for everyone who had had enough with the flaming rhetoric that floods every SCOTUS decision, masking the actual decision, or someone who wants to understand the process better. Which in all honesty, should be every American.

In Last Branch Standing, Sara Isgur introduces the concept of the X-axis, the justices’ partisan philosophy, and the Y-axis, the justices’ position on institutionalism. Mrs. Isgur argues (as every lawyer does) that while we mostly focuses on the X-Axis, the Y-Axis cannot be ignored in understanding the court’s decisions and alliances. She goes on to explain how the court actually functions in a 3-3-3 arrangement as oppose to a partisan split as we have been led to believe.

The book does a lot more than simply explains how SCOTUS works, it dives into the clerk culture, an important piece, how and why they select cases, as well as its function as an outlier to the other two branches of the government. Each section is fascinating, well written with a dose of humor, and full with interesting and amusing footnotes for us trivia lovers.

[Yvonne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Books about the workings (or lack thereof) of government can often be condescending and dry. Fortunately, this one isn't. Sarah Isgur is very good at writing for the interested layperson, and the book is both informative and entertaining. It starts with an overview of the current court and how it works, goes on to explore the history of the court and how we got here, and then addresses some of the practical problems and suggests some possible remedies (and also points out potential problems with some of the remedies).

The descriptions of the current court and how the justices work and interact are really interesting, although I assume a new edition will be needed after a few of the justices have retired and been replaced. There are some excellent explanations of why the split decisions don't always align along the liberal-conservative axis - things are obviously more complicated than that, and Isgur is a very clear explainer. The historical context in the second part of the book is interesting in its own right as well as setting the scene for some of the cases under recent review. It's also nice to see some of the problems - both systemic and individual - being addressed.

I have to admit I'm not totally convinced that all the justices are acting with squeaky-clean motives and aren't letting political bias into their decisions, but Sarah Isgur goes a long way to making sense of it all.

[Monica Beard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Isgur's book is intended for a non legal audience, and her central thesis is that although it may seem like justices make decisions based on partisan decisions, it is far more that they are influenced from factors such as textualism vs originalism, the overwhelming nature of their docket and other practical concerns.

Isgur's strength: awareness of the behinds the scenes work of the court, including details about the lives of its clerks, debates the justice have and how they spend their summer vacations, is illuminating to provide context. But at the same time, her closeness (she mentions a closeness with Brett Kavanaugh and in a rather disturbing sentence, dismisses the sexual assault allegations against Justice Kavanaugh), means that the book is less nuanced and thoughtful than it could be. Perhaps since I was reading this shortly after Shaun Ossei-Owusu's Law on Trial, it was clear how Isgur is defending the technical process (a chapter about precedent argues that abortion was always on shaky ground constitutionally without acknowledging that overturning precedent has a massive impact on women's lives, which can impact whether the public judges John Roberts to simply be calling balls and strikes.

This was a good addition to Supreme Court writing, but I'd suggest it be paired with books that more closely consider the court's impact, as well as intent. Thanks to Crown Publishing for the early copy.

[Jamiefrank212 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone who has had the pleasure of listening regularly to Advisory Opinions knows Sarah Isgur as a brilliant analyst of the Supreme Court; the depth of her knowledge of case law is matched by her quick wit and her contagious delight in nerding out about legal theory. She is the best in the business at making legal issues interesting and accessible even to non-lawyers, while providing depth and nuance in which the finest legal minds can find important new insights. Sarah brings those same talents to her writing, and Last Branch Standing will delight both long time AO-listeners and the merely SCOTUS-curious. If you've long wondered what's going on behind the scenes at One First Street, what the justices are really like, what it actually means to be a clerk, or if you're fascinated by how the justices think about legal issues and why it matters, Last Branch Standing is for you. If you're encountering these questions for the first time, this book is for you too. Read it and you'll realize why it's worth caring about what the Justices are up to, and you'll have a blast along the way. (And if it makes you want to go to law school, there's a chapter about that too!).

[JD DiLoreto-Hill · Rating 1 out of 5]

I rarely fail to finish a book, but this one broke the streak. If you enjoy the work of Adam Liptak, Joan Biskupic, or Jeffrey Toobin, this won’t land for you. It reads as both an elementary primer on the Court and a soft-focus defense of its conservative majority.

The first section (which is where I tapped out) strips away nearly all nuance around the Court’s partisanship. The argument boils down to this: ignore the most consequential and overtly partisan decisions of the past 15 years, and you’ll find a bench that mostly agrees. It’s a framing that asks readers to extend grace to the six conservative justices on the grounds that things could be even more ideologically driven.

That’s not analysis. That’s a remarkably privileged take on the judiciary.

As an aside, the author also offers a genuinely appalling “hot take” when discussing Brett Kavanaugh: that survivors of long-ago assaults should keep their mouths shut. Stay classy.

[Aaki Mehrotra · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Supreme Court is one of the most mysterious yet influential institutions in American politics. However, as the book so adeptly explains, institutions are made of people. The Court is made up of nine people, to be exact. Each person has their own version of the Constitution and a method to interpret our laws. Each has its own measure of what constitutes a law's constitutionality.

This novel presents each person not as a mysterious figure but as a legal thinker who interprets the law in their own way. It makes no excuses for the Justices but reminds the reader that, like us all, they are human and are doing what they believe is best for the country and what's congruent with following the law.

It is a personality-driven book and a phenomenal read if anyone wants to better understand the third branch of the federal government.

[Jared Besse · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book! As a huge fan of Advisory Opinions for many years, it was so fun to read a book written from Sarah's witting perspective.

While I was reading it, I raved about it to practically everyone I know. It made me laugh out loud almost every chapter and is such a great resource to the Court as it stands today. Some of the historical stories at the Court, the breakdown of each Justice and the recommendations for constitutional amendments were among my favorite bits.

Plus, it was so entertaining to see so many of my favorite Sarahisms from the podcast in the book.

Highly recommended to all who want to learn more about the modern Court and want to be optimistic about why the Supreme Court does what it does.

[Josh Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a phenomenal book. Isgur narrates much better than I was expecting and was really easy to listen to. The book kept her witty writing style, and the content really is uniquely important at this time in American history. Anyone could read this and learn a ton about the history of the Supreme Court, the current court (including a breakdown of each member) and some possible problems for the short term future. Put down your political tribe's flag and go into this with an open mind. You'll start to be able to see through the uninformed headlines about court cases and understand the logic and philosophy that goes into them - from several judges perspectives.

[Julia · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're not familiar with Sarah's Advisory Opinions podcast, you probably won't get her writing style; it's very much in the same vein as how she just speaks but I found it very entertaining. She somehow can make the Supreme Court seem so cool. I loved all the historical tidbits and insights to each justice (though this will be outdated probably in the near future) but her overall thesis is how vital the institution of the Court is but the other two branches of government need to actually do their jobs (looking at your Congress) so we're not just deferring to the Supreme Court to get us out of a tough situation when something could have been done about it long before. My brain still does not think in legal terms so this one at times went over my head even though she explains it well but overall would recommend it! A great read.

[Zehava (Joyce) · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wasn’t sure if this book would be for me but the author was my husband’s law school classmate so I decided to give it a try. This book is very interesting and it’s also funny! Sarah Isgur manages to explain the Supreme Court and all of its idiosyncrasies in a really clear and relatable way. If you have any interest in this topic this is definitely a great entry to learning more about the Supreme Court. I especially loved the chapter at the end: should you go to law school? No! The audiobook is very well narrated by the author.

[Kate]

Sarah Isgur goes into great detail about how the current US Supreme Court (2026) is more nuance than the 6-3 division along party lines, that they are nonpartisan, but since they just 6-3 killed the Voting Rights Act yesterday (and that's just one example), it's hard to really believe what she is saying vs what we are seeing.
I'm not saying what she is saying is all wrong, she has hung out with all 9 Justices personally, and I know they do split from time to time, but it still feels partisan, and her X-axis vs Y-axis measuring stick didn't broaden the picture like I think she hoped it would.

[STUART J · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a brilliant, but readable, book about the Court from a seasoned Court-watcher. One does not have to agree with her assessment of the current Court to find much to learn about the inner workings of the Court, and her analysis of the demise of the judicial filibuster rule in the Senate is spot-on. However, the argument that the current Justices are all nice people off the Court, kind to small children and puppies, does not mean that they come to the Court without political biases which influence their opinions. The current Court is not immune from Dred Scott moments.

[Emma Stewart · Rating 3 out of 5]

Witty Yet Insightful Thoughts on SCOUS

Sarah Imgur tackles an in-depth look at the US Supreme Court throughout its history. For someone like myself, with no legal background, it is rather “deep”. I managed to plod through it, however, and feel I gained some useful insights into the complexities it faces in either making or not making decisions. It also made me much more aware of the dangers our country faces because of Congress’s abrogation of its duties. There’s a lot of “food for thought” here. I’m glad I took the time to read it.

[Ceil · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a longtime listener / reader to Isgur's podcasts and newsletters, I was familiar with her thoughts on many key issues before the Court. What was new, and wonderful, were the thumbnail sketches of each of the current judges, humanizing them while providing useful insights into how their thinking informs their decisions. I'll be less likely to knee-jerk judge decisions that seem wacky to me thanks to her.

And of course, it's all delivered with her trademark wit, snark, deep knowledge, and obvious love for the Court and the work they do.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Last Branch Standing is a useful introduction and guide to the U.S. Supreme Court for the lay person interested in how the court works.
Sarah Isgur's writing style is informative and entertaining. She presents an overview of the history of the court and its members and how cases are decided.
I found this to be an enjoyable read full of history and information I can use.
I heartily recommend it.
Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Random House for this e-ARC in exchange for this honest review