This article explores the underlying pedagogical process implicit in the transformative use of narrative in formal legal settings. It examines the efforts of a diverse coalition of American Indian peoples and their advocates to strengthen the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act by using the legislative process to ‘educate’ lawmakers about their religious beliefs and the urgency of their situations. I argue that longstanding orientalism and the need to perpetuate a colonizer/colonized dichotomy engendered an inability among decision makers and others in positions of influence to ‘learn’ from American Indian peoples, as well as a seeming paranoia concerning their empowerment. Moreover, the ‘antidialogic’ nature of the legislative process prevented the type of interaction necessary to overcome this resistance and engender effective and appropriate responses to the coalition’s efforts to ensure the well-being of their communities and religious lives. This case study demonstrates the ways in which subversion requires more than deconstruction or the presencing of voice, but requires dialogic structures of engagement with Other narratives through a more cooperative resolutionary process. I suggest that incorporating theories and methods of critical pedagogy into sociolegal scholarship would contribute to developing more comprehensive frameworks for analysis and practice needed to realize law’s transformative potential.