<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css" />
{{WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Header}}
{{WP:RSPNutshell|gr|shortcut=}}
{{Infobox source reliability
 | type			= website
 | shortcut		= WP:RSPSCOTUSBLOG
 | status		= gr
 | last			= 2021
 | domain1		= scotusblog.com

 | rfc			= [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#RfC on SCOTUSblog|Rfc]]
 | rfcdate		= 2021

}}

{{WP:RSPIntro|SCOTUSblog}}
__TOC__

== Summary ==
In a 2021 RfC, there was strong consensus that ''SCOTUSblog'' is [[WP:GREL|generally reliable]] for law-related topics. Some authors on ''SCOTUSblog'' are [[subject-matter experts]], but editors do not consider the website an [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP|academic source]]. Editors recommend [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]] for ''SCOTUSblog''{{'}}s [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion]] and analysis articles.

== Excerpt ==
{{hatnote|Excerpt from the lead of [[SCOTUSblog]]:}}
<div class="source-excerpt">
{{excerpt|SCOTUSblog|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs|hat=no|references=no|inline=yes}}
</div>

== Discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}

=== Links ===

==== RSN ====
<div class="source-disc-list">

* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38#Tom Goldstein and SCOTUSblog as sources for Supreme Court articles]]

* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Determining whether a source is SPS in deciding whether BLPSPS applies]]

</div>

=== Recency ===
<span class="source-talk-last">{{WP:RSPLAST/sandbox|2021|table=no}}</span>

=== Rfcs ===
<div class="source-rfc-list">

# 2021 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#RfC on SCOTUSblog|Rfc]]

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
<references />

== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gr" id="SCOTUSblog"
| ''[[SCOTUSblog]]'' {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:RSPSCOTUSBLOG}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gr}}
| {{rsnl|326|RfC on SCOTUSblog|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2021}}
| In a 2021 RfC, there was strong consensus that ''SCOTUSblog'' is [[WP:GREL|generally reliable]] for law-related topics. Some authors on ''SCOTUSblog'' are [[subject-matter experts]], but editors do not consider the website an [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP|academic source]]. Editors recommend [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]] for ''SCOTUSblog''{{'}}s [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion]] and analysis articles.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|scotusblog.com}}
|}