Tangle Podcast: SPECIAL EDITION – Isaac Saul Interviews Sarah Isgur

Date: February 12, 2026
Host: Isaac Saul
Guest: Sarah Isgur (Co-host, Advisory Opinions, Author of Last Branch Standing)

Episode Overview

In this special edition, Isaac Saul sits down with legal analyst and podcast host Sarah Isgur to break down the current legal landscape, major Supreme Court maneuvers, the intricacies of immigration enforcement, and the often-misunderstood dynamics of court compliance by the Trump administration. The discussion spans recent headline-grabbing court decisions, the deeper implications of administrative and judicial warrants, and an inside look at Sarah's new book aimed at demystifying the Supreme Court.

The conversation is insightful, nerdy, and packed with legal context, yet remains accessible for non-lawyers — all delivered with both hosts' dry wit and realism.

Key Topics & Highlights

1. Supreme Court’s Refusal to Intervene on Redistricting (Start at [02:24])

Breaking News: Supreme Court Denies Intervention in California Redistricting

• Context: Supreme Court allows California’s redistricted maps to stand, as it had earlier with Texas.
• Isaac’s Layperson’s Take: Wonders if this signals the court's ongoing hands-off approach to gerrymandering after recent years’ rulings.
• Sarah’s Legal Breakdown:
  • Since 2018’s Rucho v. Common Cause, SCOTUS has declared partisan redistricting a "political question" beyond judicial reach.
  • Nonpartisan/bipartisan redistricting commissions haven’t measurably improved competitiveness or incumbency metrics.
  • Notable evolution: States can now redistrict mid-cycle, as Texas and now California have shown, escalating “gerrymandering wars.”
  • The Court’s unsigned, unexplained orders reinforce its intent to "stop, you know, complaining to mom after dad already said no"—the judicial equivalent of “enough is enough.”
  • Quote ([06:43]):

    “When they said they are out of the business of … being the hall monitor for your gerrymandering and partisan redistricting, they meant it.” — Sarah Isgur

Political Impact

• Trump’s acceleration of aggressive redistricting has ironically led to outcomes that may benefit Democrats, or in some states, result in a “wash.”
• Ongoing uncertainty in states like Virginia.

2. Supreme Court’s Delay on Trump Tariffs Ruling ([08:08])

The Mysterious Delay: What’s Up With the Tariffs Case?

• Isaac’s Question: Is it unusual the Court hasn’t ruled? Is there a strategic reason for the delay?
• Sarah’s Analysis:
  • The case is on the merits docket, not the interim docket; big, tough decisions often drop in June.
  • But: Because the Court let tariffs stand during consideration, a delayed strike-down would create a refund/retroactivity mess.
  • “Vibes-based” sense among legal watchers is Trump would lose, but as time drags, odds tip slightly toward Trump’s win.
  • Quote ([11:20]):

    “Every week that goes by where we haven’t gotten a tariff decision … it raises the odds slightly that the Trump administration wins.” — Sarah Isgur

Oral Arguments and Possible Outcomes

• Draws a parallel to Biden’s student loan case: the Court balks at presidents using old vague statutes for huge actions.
• But tariff authority intertwines with foreign policy (a gray area Congress often lets presidents handle).
• Sarah came in sure Trump would lose; oral arguments made it less clear, especially after tough questioning by Justice Gorsuch (skeptical of executive overreach) and more sympathetic notes from Kavanaugh (concern for executive latitude in foreign affairs).
• Quote ([15:27]):

  “I went in feeling really certain that [Trump] was gonna lose the tariff case. And the oral argument made me less certain.” — Sarah Isgur

3. ICE, Administrative Warrants, and the Fourth Amendment ([20:28])

Explaining Warrants in Immigration Raids

• Isaac: With ICE operations making headlines in Minnesota, what’s the legal limit—can agents enter homes with only administrative (not judicial) warrants?
• Sarah’s Fourth Amendment 101:
  • The Fourth Amendment privileges warrants signed by neutral magistrates (i.e., Article III judges).
  • Most immigration enforcement/removal proceedings are civil, not criminal.
  • Administrative warrants are signed by executive officials, not judges.
  • No definitive Supreme Court case on whether only an administrative warrant is enough to enter homes; most legal thinking is that it’s not sufficient for entering a citizen’s home under the Fourth Amendment.
  • Tricky scenarios arise: what if ICE enters a citizen’s home searching for an undocumented person? The citizen’s rights may be violated, but remedies (e.g., monetary damages or excluding evidence) are nearly nonexistent.
  • Quote ([24:25]):

    “They look like they would hold that an administrative warrant is not enough to go into someone's home.” — Sarah Isgur

Prospects for Legal Challenges

• The “real” test case would be a U.S. citizen seeking an injunction (not just damages) against future unauthorized entry.
• Remedy problems: for non-criminal immigration proceedings, exclusionary rules don’t apply, complicating challenges and redress.

4. Is the Trump Administration Defying Court Orders? ([31:10])

Headline: Minnesota Judge Alleges Hundreds of Court Order Violations by ICE

• Isaac: Is the administration becoming lawless, or is this overblown?
• Sarah’s Distinctions:
  • At the Supreme Court level, the administration isn’t defying orders.
  • At lower courts (district/circuit), delays in compliance often reflect resource constraints—not willful defiance.
  • The recent Minnesota case is about overwhelmed DOJ attorneys missing deadlines, not ignoring substantive orders.
  • Memorable Moment ([34:21]):

    “You had a lawyer show up in a Minnesota courtroom this week and say, ‘Your Honor, I wish you would hold me in contempt because then I would be able to actually get some sleep.’” — Sarah Isgur

  • Nor is it okay: administrative capacity failures still have consequences, but it’s distinct from deliberate legal nullification.

5. Sarah Isgur’s New Book: Last Branch Standing ([35:43])

• About the Book:
  • Aimed at helping readers truly understand the Supreme Court—its history, the justices, and how it actually works.
  • Includes bios, a history from the first chief justice through the filibuster wars, and even a statistical analysis of Court dynamics using AI models.
  • Notable Finding:
    • AI predicted 42% of cases would split 6-3 ideologically; in reality, 42% were unanimous and only 15% split ideologically.
    • Equal numbers of big splits had liberals vs. conservatives in dissent.

      “The Court is just not quite what you're told that it is by either side's media.” — Sarah Isgur ([36:44])

  • Sarah aims to make the Court's inner workings accessible, challenging prevailing media narratives.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Supreme Court’s Stance on Redistricting ([06:43]):

  • “Stop, you know, complaining to mom after dad already said no.”

• On Tariff Case Delays ([11:20]):

  • “Every week that goes by where we haven’t gotten a tariff decision … it raises the odds slightly that the Trump administration wins.”

• On the Limits of Administrative Warrants ([24:25]):

  • “They look like they would hold that an administrative warrant is not enough to go into someone's home.”

• On Overworked DOJ Lawyers ([34:21]):

  • “You had a lawyer show up in a Minnesota courtroom this week and say, ‘Your Honor, I wish you would hold me in contempt because then I would be able to actually get some sleep.’”

• On AI and Court Predictions ([36:44]):

  • “The Court is just not quite what you're told that it is by either side's media. Frankly, it's far more interesting.”

Timestamps of Key Segments

• [02:24] — Supreme Court redistricting decisions & implications
• [08:08] — Why the tariff ruling hasn’t arrived; oral arguments recap
• [20:28] — Administrative vs. judicial warrants, Fourth Amendment rights, and ICE entry debates
• [31:10] — Is the Trump administration ignoring court orders? Minnesota resource crunch cases
• [35:43] — About Sarah’s new book Last Branch Standing and AI vs. real-life court rulings

Tone & Takeaways

The conversation is lively, knowledgeable, and illustrative, blending legal nuance with practical insight. Both hosts cut through media narratives to clarify what is (and isn’t) happening in courts, ICE enforcement, and executive actions. The reality: law is usually messier and less ideological than the headlines suggest, and the Supreme Court is both less predictable and more fascinating than most give it credit for.

Highly recommended for readers/listeners looking to understand the legal conversations shaping today's politics—without partisan spin.