Although ubiquitous in academic discourse for over a decade, disciplinary literacy scholarship has only recently begun to explicitly interrogate critical literacy as a discipline-dependent set of dispositions, discourses, skills, and practices. Drawing from critical disciplinary literacy (CDL) theory, this article presents findings from a mini-unit co-designed and co-taught by an Iowa state district court judge and literacy professor that sought to teach 24 U.S. History students the disciplinary particulars of applying critical literacies while reading legal opinions issued by an all-male state Supreme Court. Analysis of student responses reveals that the CDL mini-unit helped most students experience disciplinary belonging and develop text-dependent skills; additionally, most students began to consider writers' positionalities when sourcing legal opinions. Yet, a small group of students repudiated the CDL mini-unit, evidenced through both resignation and overt resistance to discussing systems of power and oppression. Implications for secondary students and teachers are discussed.