The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution

Keith Richotte, Jr.

The story they have chosen to tell is wrong. It is time to tell a better story. Keith Richotte begins his playful, unconventional look at Native American and Supreme Court history with a question: When did plenary power-the federal government's self-appointed, essentially limitless authority over Native America-become constitutional? When the Supreme Court first embraced this massive federal authority in the 1880s it did not bother to find any justification for the decision, which was rooted in racist ideas about tribal nations. However, by the 21st century, the Supreme Court began telling a different story. It was claiming the U.S. Constitution as the source of federal plenary power over Native America. So, when did the Supreme Court change its story? Just as importantly, why did it change its story? And what does this change mean for Native America, the Supreme Court, and the rule of law? Richotte uses the genre of trickster stories to uncover the answers to these questions and offer an alternative understanding. More than corrective constitutional history, The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told provides an irreverent synthesis of Native American legal history across more than 100 years, reflecting on race, power, and sovereignty along the way.

Politics & GovernmentPolitics & Government · medium confidencePolitics & Government81 signalsLlm Classifier: Politics & Government -> Politics & GovernmentGoogle Books: Law -> True Crime & JusticeKeyword Classifier: American History -> American HistoryIndigenous HistoryConstitutional HistoryCourts & TrialsIntellectual History & Ideas
Experimental book profileGenerated by GPT-5.4 nano · may contain inaccuracies

This is an unverified interpretation of the catalog description, offered as an opt-in discovery experiment—not as bibliographic fact.

  1. 01 Central figures

    None extracted with sufficient confidence.

  2. 02 Central places

    None extracted with sufficient confidence.

  3. 03 Suggested argument

    The Supreme Court’s constitutional justification for federal plenary power over Native America changed over time, shifting from racist-justifying origins to a Constitution-based story, raising implications for Native sovereignty, court legitimacy, and rule of law.

    Model confidence 63%

  4. 04 Reading orientation

    64 / 100 academic

    Academic

    An estimate of intended readership and scholarly apparatus—not quality or importance.

Confidence percentages are the model's own estimates. Profile confidence: 78%.