Scope: General U.S. legal research education; no conclusion about a particular dispute.
Start with a question you can actually research
A legal claim can sound convincing long before anyone has checked it. A video may show an old quotation. A post may display a statute number. A speaker may confidently announce that a rule applies to everyone. The research begins by separating the statement from the evidence offered for it.
Write the claim down precisely. Then identify what would have to be true for it to hold. A statement such as “courts cannot do that” leaves several questions unanswered: which courts, exercising which authority, concerning which subject, in which jurisdiction, and at what time? Until those questions are fixed, the claim is too broad to test responsibly.
RLS recommends converting the claim into a neutral question. Instead of searching only for material that proves the speaker right, ask what sources govern the issue and whether they support, limit or contradict the proposition. That change in wording helps prevent the desired answer from dictating the research.
Follow the citation to its source
An explanation can help you understand a subject, but you should identify the type of material you are reading. The Law Library of Congress distinguishes secondary resources, which explain and analyze law, from the primary sources those resources help researchers locate.[1] An article about a decision is not the decision itself. A discussion of a statute is not its enacted text.
Retrieve the cited source and locate the particular passage. Compare the original with the quotation or paraphrase. Read enough surrounding material to understand who is speaking, what question is being addressed and what qualifications accompany the statement.
Make a short record: the claim, the source, the precise passage and your explanation of the connection between them. If you cannot explain how the passage supports the claim, finding the citation has not completed the task.
Look for the limits
Ask what the source leaves unresolved. Does the passage concern a particular statutory scheme? Does the conclusion depend on facts omitted from the online account? Does the speaker expand a narrow proposition into an absolute statement? These are research questions, not automatic reasons to dismiss a source.
Search deliberately for contrary material. RLS's editorial method requires preserving authorities that qualify a conclusion, rather than presenting only the favorable ones. A useful research note distinguishes what the sources establish from what remains uncertain.
Consider a hypothetical post claiming that a quoted definition settles every use of a word throughout the law. Before accepting the conclusion, identify the definition's stated scope and examine the provision in which the word actually appears. The quotation may be accurate while the proposed application still needs substantial research.
Write a conclusion that matches the evidence
Avoid forcing every claim into a simple true-or-false answer. Your conclusion may be that the proposition is supported within a defined setting, partly supported, materially qualified or unsupported by the sources reviewed. State the jurisdiction, time period and limits of the work.
A useful conclusion explains both the answer and the path to it: “The reviewed sources support this narrower proposition, but they do not establish the broader claim.” That is more informative than repeating the original slogan with a citation attached.
The RLS standard is practical: a reader should be able to follow the sources and understand why the conclusion follows. Confidence becomes useful when it is accompanied by a record that another person can examine.
Source notes
- [1] Law Library of Congress, Legal Research: A Guide to Secondary Resources — IntroductionSource checked: October 8, 2026