reported speech questions and instructions

Reported Speech (Part 2) – Requests, Orders, and Questions

My colleague asked me to help him update his computer.

Read Reported Speech (Part 1) to learn how to make reported statements.

In Part 2, we will focus on requests, orders, and questions.

1. Requests/orders

• “Asked me to”  is used for requests.
• “Told me to” is stronger; it is used for orders/commands.
• The main verb stays in the infinitive: She asked me to make copies. He told me to go to the bank.

2. Yes/no questions

• “Asked if” and “wanted to know if” are equal.
• The main verb changes according to the rules for reported statements : “ Did you turn off the TV?” (past simple) She asked if I had turned off the TV (past perfect)
• We don’t use the auxiliary verbs “do/does/did” in the reported question.

3. Other questions

• “Asked”  and “wanted to know” are equal.
• We don’t use the auxiliary verb “do” or “does” in the reported question: “Where does he work?” She wanted to know where he works .
• In questions with the verb “to be,” the word order  changes in the reported question: “Where were you born?” (Question word + [to be] + subject) He asked where I was born (Question word + subject + [to be]) He asked where was I born

Reported Speech (Part 2) Quiz

Master the details of english grammar:.

More Espresso English Lessons:

About the author.

Shayna Oliveira

Shayna Oliveira is the founder of Espresso English, where you can improve your English fast - even if you don’t have much time to study. Millions of students are learning English from her clear, friendly, and practical lessons! Shayna is a CELTA-certified teacher with 10+ years of experience helping English learners become more fluent in her English courses.

• B1-B2 grammar

Reported speech: questions

Do you know how to report a question that somebody asked? Test what you know with interactive exercises and read the explanation to help you.

Look at these examples to see how we can tell someone what another person asked.

direct speech: 'Do you work from home?' he said. indirect speech: He asked me if I worked from home. direct speech: 'Who did you see?' she asked. indirect speech: She asked me who I'd seen. direct speech: 'Could you write that down for me?' she asked. indirect speech: She asked me to write it down.

Try this exercise to test your grammar.

Grammar B1-B2: Reported speech 2: 1

Read the explanation to learn more.

Grammar explanation

A reported question is when we tell someone what another person asked. To do this, we can use direct speech or indirect speech.

direct speech: 'Do you like working in sales?' he asked. indirect speech: He asked me if I liked working in sales.

In indirect speech, we change the question structure (e.g. Do you like ) to a statement structure (e.g. I like ).

We also often make changes to the tenses and other words in the same way as for reported statements (e.g. have done → had done , today → that day ). You can learn about these changes on the Reported speech 1 – statements page.

Yes / no questions

In yes / no questions, we use if or whether to report the question. If is more common.

'Are you going to the Helsinki conference?' He asked me if I was going to the Helsinki conference. 'Have you finished the project yet?' She asked us whether we'd finished the project yet.

Questions with a question word

In what , where , why , who , when or how questions, we use the question word to report the question.

'What time does the train leave?' He asked me what time the train left. 'Where did he go?' She asked where he went.

Reporting verbs

The most common reporting verb for questions is ask , but we can also use verbs like enquire , want to know or wonder .

'Did you bring your passports?' She wanted to know if they'd brought their passports. 'When could you get this done by?' He wondered when we could get it done by.

Offers, requests and suggestions

If the question is making an offer, request or suggestion, we can use a specific verb pattern instead, for example offer + infinitive, ask + infinitive or suggest + ing.

'Would you like me to help you?' He offered to help me. 'Can you hold this for me, please?' She asked me to hold it. 'Why don't we check with Joel?' She suggested checking with Joel.

Do this exercise to test your grammar again.

Grammar B1-B2: Reported speech 2: 2

Language level

Hello, dear teachers and team!

Could you please help me with the following: 

• She asked me "Does the Earth turn around the Sun?"

  Does it have to be: "She asked me if the Earth TURNED around the Sun" ? 

Do we have to change the question into the past form here as well? 

2. She asked: "Was coffee originally green"?

Is "She asked me if the coffee HAD BEEN originally  green" correct option? Can I leave WAS in an inderect speech here? 

3. Is "She asked me if I knew if the Sun IS a star" or  "She asked me if I knew if the Sun WAS / HAD BEEN a star" (if any)  correct?  

I'm very very grateful for your precious help and thank you very much for your answering this post in advance!!! 

• Log in or register to post comments

Hello howtosay_.

1. She asked me "Does the Earth turn around the Sun?"  Does it have to be: "She asked me if the Earth TURNED around the Sun" ?

No, you can use the present here as well. The verb for this context would be 'go' rather than 'turn':

She asked me if the earth goes around the sun.

She asked me if the earth went around the sun.

Do we have to change the question into the past form here as well? 2. She asked: "Was coffee originally green"? Is "She asked me if the coffee HAD BEEN originally  green" correct option? Can I leave WAS in an inderect speech here?

You can use either 'had been' or 'was' here. The adverb 'originally' removes any ambiguity.

3. Is "She asked me if I knew if the Sun IS a star" or  "She asked me if I knew if the Sun WAS / HAD BEEN a star" (if any)  correct?

You can use 'is' or 'was' here but not 'had been' as that would suggest the sun is not a star any more.

The LearnEnglish Team

She offered me to encourage studying English. She asked us if we could give her a hand.

He said, "I wished she had gone."

How to change this sentence into indirect speech?

Hello bhutuljee,

'He said that he wished she had gone.'

Best wishes, Kirk LearnEnglish team

He said, "I wish she went."

How to change the above sentence into indirect speech?

Hi bhutuljee,

It would be: "He said that he wished she had gone."

LearnEnglish team

He said , "She wished John would succeed."

This is the third sentence you've asked us to transform in this way. While we try to offer as much help as we can, we are not a service for giving answers to questions which may be from tests or homework so we do limit these kinds of answers. Perhaps having read the information on the page above you can try to transform the sentence yourself and we will tell you if you have done it correctly or not.

Hi, I hope my comment finds you well and fine. 1- reported question of "where did he go?"

Isn't it: She asked where he had gone?

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/b1-b2-grammar/reported-…

2- how can I report poilte questions with( can I, May I) For example: She asked me" Can I borrow some money?"

Your reply will be highly appreciated.

Online courses

Group and one-to-one classes with expert teachers.

Learn English in your own time, at your own pace.

One-to-one sessions focused on a personal plan.

Get the score you need with private and group classes.  

Reported questions – Exercise

Task no. 2323.

Finish the sentences using Reported speech. Always change the tense, although it is sometimes not necessary.

Peter, "Did John clean the black shoes?" Peter asked me  

Peter asked me if John had cleaned the black shoes .

Do you need help?

Reported questions in English

• Christopher, "Do you want to dance?" Christopher asked me .
• Betty, "When did you come?" Betty wanted to know .
• Mark, "Has John arrived?" Mark asked me .
• Ronald, "Where does Maria park her car?" Ronald asked me .
• Elisabeth, "Did you watch the latest film?" Elisabeth asked me .
• Mandy, "Can I help you?" Mandy wanted to know .
• Andrew, "Will Mandy have lunch with Sue?" Andrew asked me .
• Justin, "What are you doing?" Justin asked me .
• Frank, "How much pocket money does Lisa get?" Frank wanted to know .
• Anne, "Must I do the shopping?" Anne asked .
• You are here:
• Grammar Exercises
• Reported Speech

• Grammar Lessons
• Grammar Exercises
• Grammar Quizzes
• Mixed Tests
• PDF Worksheets
• Beginners Lessons
• Easy Worksheets
• Beginners Tests
• Reading Exercises
• Drag & Drop Grammar
• English For Kids
• Kids Word Games
• Picture Vocabulary
• Reading Tests
• Short Dialogues
• Short Sentences
• Closest in Meaning
• Irrelevant Sentence
• ESL Paragraphs
• GRE Reading
• Text Completion
• GRE Equivalence
• SAT Sentence
• Essay Writing
• Vocabulary Exercises
• Study Skills Tips
• Drag & Drop Vocab

Reported Speech Questions

Questions With Question Words

Yes/no questions (with helping verb).

Reported Speech Exercise: Requests And Commands

Reported speech exercises | reporting requests and commands.

Do the exercises below about the reported speech (requests and commands) and click on the button to check your answers.

(Before doing the exercise you may want to see the lesson on reported speech )

Transform these requests and commands into reported speech (start the sentence as suggested.)

• Can you lend me your book? → She asked me
• Please, help me with my homework → She begged her brother
• Could you spell your name, please? → She asked him
• Stand up. → The policeman ordered the criminal
• Don't be late. → She warned me
• Please, park your car away from the factory. → The security agent asked her
• Don't call me anymore. → She asked him
• Enjoy your stay in Paris → The hotel manager told her
• Please, keep quiet. → She asked the kids
• Don't leave me alone. → He told his mom
• Could you bring your laptops? → The teacher asked the students
• Be nice to your sister . → He urged his son
• You must not use the calculator.→ The maths teacher told the students
• Can you send invitations to all participants? → He asked his secretary
• You had better exercise regularly. → The doctor advised him
• Don't eat too much red meat. → The doctor advised him
• Stop making fool of me. → He asked her
• Open the window, please. → The duke ordered his butler
• Drop me at the hotel, please. → He asked the taxi driver
• Don't put the bag on the table. → She asked her daughter

Related materials

• Reported speech exercise (mixed)
• Reported speech exercise (questions)
• Reported speech exercise (requests and commands)
• Reported speech lesson

Reported Speech Exercise 3

Perfect english grammar.

• Review reported orders and requests here
• Download this quiz in PDF here
• More reported speech exercises here

Hello! I'm Seonaid! I'm here to help you understand grammar and speak correct, fluent English.

Read more about our learning method

EnglishPost.org

Reported Speech: Structures and Examples

Reported speech (Indirect Speech) is how we represent the speech of other people or what we ourselves say.

Reported Speech focuses more on the content of what someone said rather than their exact words

The structure of the independent clause depends on whether the speaker is reporting a statement, a question, or a command.

Table of Contents

Reported Speech Rules and Examples

Present tenses and reported speech, past tenses and reported speech, reported speech examples, reported speech and the simple present, reported speech and present continuous, reported speech and the simple past, reported speech and the past continuous, reported speech and the present perfect, reported speech and the past perfect, reported speech and ‘ can ’ and ‘can’t’, reported speech and ‘ will ’ and ‘ won’t ’, reported speech and could and couldn’t, reported speech and the future continuous, reported questions exercises online.

To turn sentences into Indirect Speech, you have to follow a set of rules and this is what makes reported speech difficult for some.

To make reported speech sentences, you need to manage English tenses well.

• Present Simple Tense changes into Past Simple Tense
• Present Progressive Tense changes into Past Progressive Tense
• Present Perfect Tense changes into Past Perfect Tense
• Present Perfect Progressive Tense changes into Past Perfect Tense
• Past Simple Tense changes into Past Perfect Tense
• Past Progressive Tense changes into Perfect Continuous Tense
• Past Perfect Tense doesn’t change
• Past Perfect Progressive Tense doesn’t change
• Future Simple Tense changes into would
• Future Progressive Tense changes into “would be”
• Future Perfect Tense changes into “would have·
• Future Perfect Progressive Tense changes into “would have been”

These are some examples of sentences using indirect speech

The present simple tense usually changes to the past simple

The present continuous tense usually changes to the past continuous.

The past simple tense usually changes to the past perfect

The past continuous tense usually changes to the past perfect continuous.

The present perfect tense usually changes to the past perfect tense

The past perfect tense does not change

 ‘ Can ’ and ‘can’t’ in direct speech change to ‘ could ’ and ‘ couldn’t ’

‘ Will ’ and ‘ won’t ’ in direct speech change to ‘ would ’ and ‘ wouldn’t ’

Could and couldn’t doesn’t change

Will ’ and ‘ won’t ’ in direct speech change to ‘ would ’ and ‘ wouldn’t ’

These are some online exercises to learn more about reported questions

• Present Simple Reported Yes/No Question Exercise
• Present Simple Reported Wh Question Exercise
• Mixed Tense Reported Question Exercise
• Present Simple Reported Statement Exercise
• Present Continuous Reported Statement Exercise

I am Jose Manuel, English professor and creator of EnglishPost.org, a blog whose mission is to share lessons for those who want to learn and improve their English

Related Posts

Frequency Adverbs Questions for the ESL Classroom

Transitive Verbs List: 125 Examples

Present Continuous Questions: Guide & Examples

Reported speech - 1

Reported speech - 2

Reported speech - 3

Worksheets - handouts

Exercises: indirect speech

• Reported speech - present
• Reported speech - past
• Reported speech - questions
• Reported questions - write
• Reported speech - imperatives
• Reported speech - modals
• Indirect speech - tenses 1
• Indirect speech - tenses 2
• Indirect speech - write 1
• Indirect speech - write 2
• Indirect speech - quiz
• Reported speech - tenses
• Indirect speech – reported speech
• Reported speech – indirect speech

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Reported speech: indirect speech

Indirect speech focuses more on the content of what someone said rather than their exact words. In indirect speech , the structure of the reported clause depends on whether the speaker is reporting a statement, a question or a command.

Indirect speech: reporting statements

Indirect reports of statements consist of a reporting clause and a that -clause. We often omit that , especially in informal situations:

The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land. (The pilot’s words were: ‘The weather was extremely bad as the plane came in to land.’ )

I told my wife I didn’t want a party on my 50th birthday. ( that -clause without that ) (or I told my wife that I didn’t want a party on my 50th birthday .)

Indirect speech: reporting questions

Reporting yes-no questions and alternative questions.

Indirect reports of yes-no questions and questions with or consist of a reporting clause and a reported clause introduced by if or whether . If is more common than whether . The reported clause is in statement form (subject + verb), not question form:

She asked if [S] [V] I was Scottish. (original yes-no question: ‘Are you Scottish?’ )

The waiter asked whether [S] we [V] wanted a table near the window. (original yes-no question: ‘Do you want a table near the window? )

He asked me if [S] [V] I had come by train or by bus. (original alternative question: ‘Did you come by train or by bus?’ )

Questions: yes-no questions ( Are you feeling cold? )

Reporting wh -questions

Indirect reports of wh -questions consist of a reporting clause, and a reported clause beginning with a wh -word ( who, what, when, where, why, how ). We don’t use a question mark:

He asked me what I wanted.

Not: He asked me what I wanted?

The reported clause is in statement form (subject + verb), not question form:

She wanted to know who [S] we [V] had invited to the party.

Not: … who had we invited …

Who , whom and what

In indirect questions with who, whom and what , the wh- word may be the subject or the object of the reported clause:

I asked them who came to meet them at the airport. ( who is the subject of came ; original question: ‘Who came to meet you at the airport?’ )

He wondered what the repairs would cost. ( what is the object of cost ; original question: ‘What will the repairs cost?’ )

She asked us what [S] we [V] were doing . (original question: ‘What are you doing?’ )

Not: She asked us what were we doing?

When , where , why and how

We also use statement word order (subject + verb) with when , where, why and how :

I asked her when [S] it [V] had happened (original question: ‘When did it happen?’ ).

Not: I asked her when had it happened?

I asked her where [S] the bus station [V] was . (original question: ‘Where is the bus station?’ )

Not: I asked her where was the bus station?

The teacher asked them how [S] they [V] wanted to do the activity . (original question: ‘How do you want to do the activity?’ )

Not: The teacher asked them how did they want to do the activity?

Questions: wh- questions

Indirect speech: reporting commands

Indirect reports of commands consist of a reporting clause, and a reported clause beginning with a to -infinitive:

The General ordered the troops to advance . (original command: ‘Advance!’ )

The chairperson told him to sit down and to stop interrupting . (original command: ‘Sit down and stop interrupting!’ )

We also use a to -infinitive clause in indirect reports with other verbs that mean wanting or getting people to do something, for example, advise, encourage, warn :

They advised me to wait till the following day. (original statement: ‘You should wait till the following day.’ )

The guard warned us not to enter the area. (original statement: ‘You must not enter the area.’ )

Verbs followed by a to -infinitive

Indirect speech: present simple reporting verb

We can use the reporting verb in the present simple in indirect speech if the original words are still true or relevant at the time of reporting, or if the report is of something someone often says or repeats:

Sheila says they’re closing the motorway tomorrow for repairs.

Henry tells me he’s thinking of getting married next year.

Rupert says dogs shouldn’t be allowed on the beach. (Rupert probably often repeats this statement.)

Newspaper headlines

We often use the present simple in newspaper headlines. It makes the reported speech more dramatic:

JUDGE TELLS REPORTER TO LEAVE COURTROOM

PRIME MINISTER SAYS FAMILIES ARE TOP PRIORITY IN TAX REFORM

Present simple ( I work )

Reported speech

Reported speech: direct speech

Indirect speech: past continuous reporting verb

In indirect speech, we can use the past continuous form of the reporting verb (usually say or tell ). This happens mostly in conversation, when the speaker wants to focus on the content of the report, usually because it is interesting news or important information, or because it is a new topic in the conversation:

Rory was telling me the big cinema in James Street is going to close down. Is that true?

Alex was saying that book sales have gone up a lot this year thanks to the Internet.

‘Backshift’ refers to the changes we make to the original verbs in indirect speech because time has passed between the moment of speaking and the time of the report.

In these examples, the present ( am ) has become the past ( was ), the future ( will ) has become the future-in-the-past ( would ) and the past ( happened ) has become the past perfect ( had happened ). The tenses have ‘shifted’ or ‘moved back’ in time.

The past perfect does not shift back; it stays the same:

Modal verbs

Some, but not all, modal verbs ‘shift back’ in time and change in indirect speech.

We can use a perfect form with have + - ed form after modal verbs, especially where the report looks back to a hypothetical event in the past:

He said the noise might have been the postman delivering letters. (original statement: ‘The noise might be the postman delivering letters.’ )

He said he would have helped us if we’d needed a volunteer. (original statement: ‘I’ll help you if you need a volunteer’ or ‘I’d help you if you needed a volunteer.’ )

Used to and ought to do not change in indirect speech:

She said she used to live in Oxford. (original statement: ‘I used to live in Oxford.’ )

The guard warned us that we ought to leave immediately. (original statement: ‘You ought to leave immediately.’ )

No backshift

We don’t need to change the tense in indirect speech if what a person said is still true or relevant or has not happened yet. This often happens when someone talks about the future, or when someone uses the present simple, present continuous or present perfect in their original words:

He told me his brother works for an Italian company. (It is still true that his brother works for an Italian company.)

She said she ’s getting married next year. (For the speakers, the time at the moment of speaking is ‘this year’.)

He said he ’s finished painting the door. (He probably said it just a short time ago.)

She promised she ’ll help us. (The promise applies to the future.)

Indirect speech: changes to pronouns

Changes to personal pronouns in indirect reports depend on whether the person reporting the speech and the person(s) who said the original words are the same or different.

Indirect speech: changes to adverbs and demonstratives

We often change demonstratives ( this, that ) and adverbs of time and place ( now, here, today , etc.) because indirect speech happens at a later time than the original speech, and perhaps in a different place.

Typical changes to demonstratives, adverbs and adverbial expressions

Indirect speech: typical errors.

The word order in indirect reports of wh- questions is the same as statement word order (subject + verb), not question word order:

She always asks me where [S] [V] I am going .

Not: She always asks me where am I going .

We don’t use a question mark when reporting wh- questions:

I asked him what he was doing.

Not: I asked him what he was doing?

Word of the Day

anonymously

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

without the name of someone who has done a particular thing being known or made public

Dead ringers and peas in pods (Talking about similarities, Part 2)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists

To add ${headword} to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add ${headword} to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Reported Speech

Reported Speech How does it Work?

Indirect speech or Reported speech is just a way of expressing your intent in questions, statements or other phrases, without essentially quoting them outrightly as the way it is done in indirect speech.

Reported Speech Rules

To understand Reported Speech Grammar and Reported Verbs, you need to first understand reported speech rules and how it works. Here are some types of reported speech:

Reported Statements

Reported speech is used when someone says a sentence, like, "I'm going to the movie tonight". Later, we want to tell a 3rd person what the first person is doing.

It works like this:

We use a reporting verb i.e 'say' or 'tell'. In the present tense, just put in 'he says.

Direct Speech: I like burgers.

Reported Speech: He says (that) he likes burgers.

You don't need to change the tense, but you do need to switch the 'person' from 'I' to 'he’. You also need to change words like 'my' and 'your'.

But, in case the reporting verb is in the past tense, then change the tenses in the reported speech itself.

Reported Questions

Reported questions to go like 

Direct Speech: Where do you reside?

We make the change to reported speech by-

It is similar to reported statements. The tense changes are exact, and we keep the question’s word. But we need to change the grammar of that normal sentence into positive. For eg:

Reported Speech: He asked me where I resided.

The direct speech question is in the present simple tense. We make a present simple question with 'do' or 'does'. For that, I need to take that away. Then change the verb to the past simple. 

Direct Speech: Where is Jolly?

Reported Speech: He asked me where Jolly was.

The direct question is the present simple of 'be'. We change the question form of the present simple of being by changing the position of the subject and the verb. So, change them back before putting the verb into the past simple.

Here Are Some More Examples

Reported Requests

The reported speech goes a long way. What if a person asks you to do something politely or make a request? It’s called a reported request. For example

Direct Speech: Close the door, please / Could you close the door please? / Would you mind closing the door, please?

All these requests mean the same, so we don't need to report every word there when we tell a 3rd person about it. 

We can simply use 'ask me + to + infinitive':

Reported Speech: They asked me to close the door.

Direct Speech: Please be punctual.

Reported Speech: They asked us to be punctual.

Reported Orders

And lastly, how about when someone doesn't ask that politely? This is known as an 'order' in English, which is when someone tells you to do something pretty much directly. This is called a reported order. For example

Direct Speech: Stand up right now!

We make this into a reported speech in the same way as that for a request. Just use 'tell' rather than 'ask':

Reported Speech: She told me to stand up right now.

Time Expressions within the Ambit of Reported Speech

Sometimes when we want to change the direct speech into reported speech, we will have to change the time expressions too. We don't necessarily always have to do that. However, It depends on when we heard the speech in indirect form and when we said the speech in reported form. 

For Example,

It's Sunday. Kiran Ma’am says "I'm leaving today".

If You tell someone on Sunday, You will say "Kiran Ma’am said she was leaving today".

If you tell someone on Tuesday, You will say "Kiran Ma’am said she was leaving yesterday".

If you tell someone on Friday, you will say "Kiran Ma’am said she was leaving on Sunday ".

If you tell someone a month later, you will say "Kiran Ma’am said she was leaving that day".

So, technically there's no easy way to convert. You need to put in real effort and have to think about it when the direct speech is said.

Here's a Table of How Some Conversions can be Made 

now can be converted to then / at that time

today can be converted to yesterday / that day / Tuesday / the 27 th of June

yesterday can be converted to the day before yesterday / the day before / Wednesday / the 5th of December

last night can be converted to the night before, Thursday night

last week can be converted to the week before / the previous week

tomorrow can be converted to today / the next day / the following day / Friday

Now Let us Check our Understanding Through this Table

This is all about reported speech. English grammar is a tricky thing given both the rules and practice. Reading these rules solely will not help you to get a strong grasp of them. You also have to practice reported speech sentences in practical life to know how and when they can be used.

FAQs on Reported Speech

1. How to convert present tenses to reported speech and give some examples.

There are certain rules to follow while converting sentences to reported speech. We need to manage tenses also.

Usually, the present sentences change to simple past tense.

Ex: I do yoga every morning

She said that she did yoga every morning.

I play cricket a lot

He said that he played cricket a lot 

Usually The present continuous tense changes to the past continuous tense. 

Ex: My friend is watching a movie.

She said that her friend was watching a movie.

We are eating dinner

They said that they were eating dinner.

Usually, the  Present Perfect Tense changes into Past Perfect Tense

Ex: I have been to the USA

She told me that she had been to the USA.

She has finished her task.

She said that she had finished her task.

Usually the Present Perfect Progressive Tense changes into Past Perfect Tense

2. How to convert present tenses to reported speech and give some examples.

Usually the Past Simple Tense changes into the Past Perfect Tense.

Ex: He arrived on Friday

He said that he had arrived on Friday.

My mom enjoyed the stay here

He said that his mom had enjoyed the stay there.

Usually, the Past Progressive Tense changes into the Perfect Continuous Tense

Ex: I was playing the cricket

He said that he had been playing cricket.

My husband was cooking

She said that her husband had been cooking.

Usually, the Past Perfect Tense doesn’t change.

Ex: She had worked hard.

She said that she had worked hard.

And also the Past Perfect Progressive Tense doesn’t change.

3. State the rules for conversion of future tenses into reported speech

There are rules to follow while converting the future tenses to reported speech.

In general, the Future Simple Tense changes into would. And also the future Progressive Tense changes into “would be”. The Future Perfect Tense changes into “would have”. The Future Perfect Progressive Tense changes into “would have been”.

Ex: I will be attending the wedding.

She said that she would be attending the wedding.

4. Give examples for conversion of  ‘can ‘, ‘can’t’ and ‘will’,’’won’t’ 

5. Give some examples for reported requests and reported orders.  

• English Grammar
• Grammar Exercises
• Reported Speech Exercises For Class 10

Reported Speech Exercises with Answers for Class 10

One of the English grammar concepts that almost all of us would have studied in our junior classes is reported speech . Having a clear understanding of reported speech helps students use sentences correctly. This article provides reported speech exercises for class 10 students.

Reported Speech Exercises for Class 10 with Answers

Here is an exercise on the transformation of direct speech to indirect speech. Go through the following sentences, work them out and then check your answers to assess how far you have understood their usage.

Change as directed

Read the following sentences and change them into reported speech.

• Mimi said, “I have been writing this letter.”
• I said, “Sam’s driving the car.”
• My uncle said, “I am cooking lunch.”
• My brother said, “I had already eaten.”
• The old lady said to the girl, “Where do you come from?”
• Jon said, “I like to play rugby.”
• My mother said, “I get up early every morning.”
• The maths teacher said, “Three divided by three is one.”
• Mohit said, “Switzerland is a very beautiful country.”
• Ruben said, “It is very cold outside.”
• The teacher said, “The French Revolution took place in 1789.”
• Uma said, “I saw a Royal Bengal Tiger in the zoo.”
• Luke said, “I can do this homework.”
• Aswini said to her mother, “I have passed the test”.
• Daphne said to Antony, “I will go to London tomorrow.”
• The boy said, “My father is sleeping.”
• The traffic police said to us, “Where are you going?”
• The man shouted, “Let me go.”
• Shivina said, “Alas! I am lost.”
• “I know her contact number,” said Helena.
• Stefen said, “My granny is making pasta.”
• Raj said to Simran, “Have you ever been to the National Museum?”
• Anish said to Sid, “Please lend me the book.”
• The teacher said to the parents, “Shelly is working very hard.”
• Joshua said, “I have completed my assignment.”
• I said to Alka, “How long will you stay here?”
• The child told his dad, “I want an ice cream.”
• Meera said, “I am not feeling well.”
• The teacher said to Vivek, “Draw the diagram of the plant’s parts.”
• Irin said, “I am playing the piano.”
• My mother said to me, “Help me carry this bag.”
• Rahul said, “My sister is very helpful.”
• The news reporter said, “The flight will be delayed by a few hours due to heavy rains.”
• Urmi said to her mother, “I want a slice of pizza.”
• I said to Daniel, “Are you reading this book?”
• Mimi said that she had been writing that letter.
• I said that Sam was driving the car.
• My uncle said that he was cooking lunch.
• My brother said that he had already eaten.
• The old lady asked the girl where she came from.
• Jon said that he likes to play rugby.
• My mother said that she gets up early every morning.
• The maths teacher said that three divided by three is one.
• Mohit said that Switzerland was a very beautiful country.
• Ruben said that it was very cold outside.
• The teacher said that the French Revolution took place in 1789.
• Uma said that she saw a Royal Bengal Tiger in the zoo.
• Luke said that he could do that homework.
• Aswini told her mother that she had passed the test.
• Daphne informed Antony that she would go to London the next day.
• The boy said that his father was sleeping.
• The traffic police asked us where we were going.
• The man shouted to them to let him go.
• Shivina exclaimed sadly that she was lost.
• Helena said that she knew her contact number.
• Stefen said that his granny was making pasta.
• Raj asked Simran if she had ever been to the National Museum.
• Anish requested Sid to lend him the book.
• The teacher told the parents that Shelly was working very hard.
• Joshua said that he had completed his assignment.
• I asked Alka how long she would stay there.
• The child told his dad that he wants an ice cream.
• Meera said that she was not feeling well.
• The teacher instructed Vivek to draw the diagram of the plant’s parts.
• Irin said that she was playing the piano.
• My mother asked me to help her carry the bag.
• Rahul said that his sister was very helpful.
• The news reporter said that the flight would be delayed by a few hours due to heavy rains.
• Urmi said to her mother that she wanted a slice of pizza.
• I asked Daniel if he was reading that book.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is direct narration.

When the actual words/sentences spoken by the speaker are quoted in a speech, it is known as direct speech/narration.

Is knowing reported speech necessary for Class 10?

Having a basic understanding of reported speech is necessary for students of any class or age. Solving exercises on direct and indirect speech will help them understand thoroughly and use them correctly.

What is indirect speech?

When the quoted speech is reported in the form of a narrative without changing the meaning of the actual quotation/words by the speaker, it is called indirect speech. Indirect speech is also known as reported speech.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Ohio State faculty adviser: Student protest arrests show start of 'A wave of repression'

Two Ohio State University students were arrested Tuesday and charged with misdemeanor criminal trespassing during an on-campus demonstration.

Ohio State University police officers arrested the students at Meiling Hall, a classroom and administrative building near the Wexner Medical Center, according to police reports. About 60 individuals had gathered to protest the Hamas-Israel war in Gaza and fossil fuel divestment.

The Dispatch is not naming the students, as they have not been charged with a felony. One student, a sociology major, is a member of Ohio Youth for Climate Justice, and the other is a journalism major and a member of OSU's Students for Justice in Palestine chapter.

Police said the students "failed to leave the area and failed to stop disrupting" an event being held in the building's lobby.

I am no longer a proud Buckeye. Ohio State president using dog whistle to muzzle free speech

A video posted by student organizers shows a group of protesters gathered on the steps outside Meiling Hall wearing pro-Palestine shirts and chanting "Free Palestine." In the video, an OSU police officer walks down the steps, points at a student, turns back to give a thumbs up to other officers before three officers walked the individual up the steps and into custody.

Another video showed about a dozen police officers and university officials blocking the building's entrance and pushing a student after officers pulled the student inside the building's safety vestibule.

What happened at Tuesday's protest at Ohio State?

Isabella Guinigundo — an Ohio State fourth-year student and communications director of Ohio Youth for Climate Justice, a statewide organization that advocates for environmental justice — said the protest was organized by several groups. It was meant to be Ohio Youth for Climate Justice's last event of the semester.

Guinigundo said students initially gathered at Mirror Lake and were met by Office of Student Life employees and OSU police officers, who warned them that there would be "no tolerance for amplified noise" because it was Reading Day, a day on the academic calendar before exams begin for students to study. They were also told they could only chant outdoors, she said.

Guinigundo said the students chose not to use the megaphones and loud speakers they brought to comply with the rules. The group eventually marched to Meiling Hall, where the OSU Wexner Medical Center Board of Trustees' Quality and Professional Affairs committee was meeting.

The group held its own "People's Board Meeting" outside the building, Guinigundo said. At some point, she said police officers told the group it could be heard from inside the building's lobby. One was arrested shortly after the warning.

Ben Johnson, a university spokesman, said the students received "multiple warnings" before their arrest that they were being too loud. The two students who were arrested were individuals who "continued at the same volume" after being warned, he said.

"Well established university policy prohibits disrupting the university’s mission, administrative functions and campus-life activities. This includes demonstrations that disrupt classroom and administrative buildings," Johnson said.

Disruptive noise, according to the university's space rules, includes, but is not limited to: amplified sound, other loud noise that is audible more than 50 feet from the source of the sound and/or noise occurring during the restricted hours above.

Guinigundo said most protesters took a step back from the doors to regroup when police arrested another student.

Johnson said it was "only when warnings weren't heeded" that students were arrested.

"Ohio State has an unwavering commitment to freedom of speech and took this action in alignment with our space use rules to provide for the orderly conduct of university business," Johnson said.

Ohio State students, faculty say police 'wanted to make an example'

Sumaya Hamadmad, an Ohio State research scientist, attended the protest as a member of the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine group. She said students complied with all rules given by university officials. They were so quiet at times, she said, she could barely hear what was being said to the group.

"You could hear more noise on a regular school day," she said. "This was meant to intimidate students."

Guinigundo agreed.

"OSUPD wanted to make an example out of our organizations," she said.

Pranav Jani, faculty adviser for Students for Justice in Palestine and an associate professor of English at Ohio State, said he believes "Ohio State has been laying the groundwork for these arrests for a long time."

"A wave of repression is starting, and we can expect it to get worse," he said.

Jani said Ohio State has suspended a student group, charged individual students under the university's code of conduct for nonviolent protests and "has basically accused students of inciting violence and hate." He said he's been in meetings with administrators and students for weeks, "and while private sympathies are expressed, actions and arrests speak louder than words."

Hamadmad said she is worried that universities calling police officers on their own students, like what is happening with student protesters at Columbia University , is setting dangerous precedent.

"Ohio State, like universities around the country, has failed to protect or even show basic empathy for their Palestinian and pro-Palestinian students and faculty, which include Muslim, Arab, Jewish, Christian and many others," Jani said. "It’s a damn shame."

Ohio State president said university will 'continue to prioritize safety'

The arrests come a day after Ohio State President Ted Carter said in an end-of-the-semester email that he respects students' right to freedom of speech, but "will not compromise" on matters of safety.

Ohio State will "continue to prioritize safety," Carter said in the email, including having university police officers and trained staff on-site for demonstrations, and enforcing space rules that prohibit "intentional disruptions of university events, classes, exams or programming, including commencement."

OSU's spring commencement is May 5 at Ohio Stadium.

Johnson said he is "cautiously optimistic that people will by and large be respectful" at protests as the semester draws to a close.

Guinigundo said protesters appreciate the support they've received, but she hopes people remember the reason they are protesting in the first place.

"Our hearts should be with Gaza," she said.

Sheridan Hendrix is a higher education reporter for The Columbus Dispatch. Sign up for Extra Credit, her education newsletter,  here .

[email protected]

@sheridan120

Justices Seem Ready to Limit the 2020 Election Case Against Trump

Such a ruling in the case, on whether the former president is immune from prosecution, would probably send it back to a lower court and could delay any trial until after the November election.

• Share full article

Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer

Charlie Savage reported from Washington, and Alan Feuer from New York.

Here are four takeaways from the Supreme Court hearing on Trump’s claim to immunity.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday about Donald J. Trump’s claim that the federal charges accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election must be thrown out because he is immune from being prosecuted for any official act he took as president.

Here are some takeaways.

Several justices seemed to want to define some level of official act as immune.

Although Mr. Trump’s claim of near-absolute immunity was seen as a long shot intended primarily to slow the proceedings, several members of the Republican-appointed majority seemed to indicate that some immunity was needed. Some of them expressed worry about the long-term consequences of leaving future former presidents open to prosecution for their official actions.

Among others, Justice Brett Kavanaugh compared the threat of prosecution for official acts to how a series of presidents were “hampered” by independent counsel investigations, criticizing a 1984 ruling that upheld a now-defunct law creating such prosecutors as one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized an appeals court ruling rejecting immunity for Mr. Trump, saying he was concerned that it “did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we are talking about or what documents are talking about.”

“It’s a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be applied to the president’s official acts. So wouldn’t you always interpret the statute not to apply to the president, even under your formulation, unless Congress had spoken with some clarity?” “I don’t think across the board that as serious constitutional question exists on applying any criminal statute to the president.” “The problem is the vague statute — obstruction and 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States can be used against a lot of presidential activities historically with a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president.” “I think that the question about the risk is very serious. And obviously it is a question that this court has to evaluate. For the executive branch, our view is that there is a balanced protection that better serves the interests of the Constitution that incorporates both accountability and protection for the president.”

The Democrat-appointed justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — asked questions indicating greater concern about opening the door for presidents to commit official crimes with impunity.

“This is what you’re asking us to say, which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake — but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office. That’s what you’re trying to get us to hold — without facing criminal liability.” “Your honor, I would say three things in response to that. First, the doctrine that immunity does not turn on the allegedly improper motivation or purpose is something that this court has reaffirmed in at least nine or 10 —” “That’s absolute immunity. But qualified immunity does say that whatever act you take has to be within what a reasonable person would do. I’m having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe, and countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that.”

The arguments signaled further delay and complications for a Trump trial.

If the Supreme Court does place limits on the ability of prosecutors to charge Mr. Trump over his official actions, it could alter the shape of his trial.

A decision to send all or part of the case back to the lower courts could further slow progress toward a trial, increasing the odds that it does not start before Election Day.

Of the matters listed in the indictment, some — like working with private lawyers to gin up slates of fraudulent electors — seem like the private actions of a candidate. Others — like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do things — seem more like official acts he took in his role as president.

At one point, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that prosecutors could simply drop Mr. Trump’s arguably official actions from their case and proceed to a swift trial focused only on his private actions. And D. John Sauer, the lawyer for Mr. Trump, told the court that no evidence of Mr. Trump’s official actions should be allowed into the trial.

But Michael R. Dreeben, a Justice Department lawyer arguing on behalf of the special counsel’s office, said the indictment laid out an “integrated conspiracy” in which Mr. Trump took the official actions to bolster the chances that his other efforts to overturn the election would succeed.

He argued that even if the court holds that Mr. Trump has immunity from liability for his official actions, prosecutors should still be allowed to present evidence about them to the jury because the actions are relevant to assessing his larger knowledge and intentions — just as speech that is protected by the First Amendment can still be used as evidence in a conspiracy case.

The hearing revolved around two very different ways of looking at the issue.

Looming over the hearing was a sweeping moral question: What effect might executive immunity have on the future of American politics?

Not surprisingly, the two sides saw things very differently.

Mr. Sauer claimed that without immunity, all presidents would be paralyzed by the knowledge that once they were out of office, they could face an onslaught of charges from their rivals based on the tough calls they had to make while in power. He pictured a dystopian world of ceaseless tit-for-tat political prosecutions that would destroy the “presidency as we know it.”

If a president can be charged, put on trial and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the court’s decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? The answer to all these questions is no.

Envisioning the opposite scenario, Mr. Dreeben worried that any form of blanket immunity would place presidents entirely outside of the rule of law and encourage them to commit crimes, including “bribery, treason, sedition, even murder,” with impunity.

“The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong,” he said.

This court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. Petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. His novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability; for bribery, treason, sedition, murder and here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution. The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong.

Both sides found advocates for their positions on the court.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. clearly seemed worried that without some form of criminal immunity, former presidents would be vulnerable to partisan warfare as their successors used the courts to go after them once they were out of office. And that, he added, could lead to endless cycles of retribution that would be a risk to “stable, democratic society.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared more concerned that if presidents were in fact shielded by immunity, they would be unbounded by the law and could turn the Oval Office into what she described as “the seat of criminality.”

If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country? If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate, because O.L.C. has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning. But once we say no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want, I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.

What happens next?

There did not seem to be a lot of urgency among the justices — especially the conservative ones — to ensure that the immunity question was resolved quickly. That left open the possibility that Mr. Trump could avoid being tried on charges of plotting to overturn the last election until well after voters went to the polls to decide whether to choose him as president in this election.

And if he is elected, any trial could be put off while he is in office, or he could order the charges against him dropped.

It could take some time for the court to do its own analysis of what presidential acts should qualify for the protections of immunity. And even if the justices determine that at least some of the allegations against Mr. Trump are fair game for prosecution, if they do not issue a ruling until late June or early July, it could be difficult to hold a trial before November.

That would become all but impossible if the court took a different route and sent the analysis back to the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan. If Judge Chutkan were ordered to hold further hearings on which of the indictment’s numerous allegations were official acts of Mr. Trump’s presidency and which were private acts he took as a candidate for office, the process could take months and last well into 2025.

Aishvarya Kavi

Reporting from Washington

A spectacle outside the Supreme Court for Trump’s defenders and detractors.

Just as the Supreme Court began considering on Thursday morning whether former President Donald J. Trump was entitled to absolute immunity, rap music started blaring outside the court.

The lyrics, laced with expletives, denounced Mr. Trump, and several dozen demonstrators began chanting, “Trump is not above the law!”

Mr. Trump was not in Washington on Thursday morning — in fact, he was in another courtroom , in New York. But the spectacle that pierced the relative tranquillity outside the court was typical of events that involve him: demonstrations, homemade signs, police, news media, and lots and lots of curious onlookers.

One man, Stephen Parlato, a retired mental health counselor from Boulder, Colo., held a roughly 6-foot-long sign with a blown-up photo of Mr. Trump scowling that read, “Toxic loser.” The back of the sign featured the famous painting by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge of dogs playing poker, adorned with the words, “Faith erodes … in a court with no binding ethics code.” He made the sign at FedEx, he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision to even hear the case, which has delayed Mr. Trump’s election interference trial , was “absurd,” he said.

“I’m a child of the late ’60s and early ’70s and the Vietnam War,” said Mr. Parlato, dressed in a leather jacket and cowboy hat. “I remember protesting that while in high school. But this is very different. I’m here because I’m terrified of the possibility of a second Trump presidency.”

Inside the court, Jack Smith sat to the far right of the lawyer arguing on behalf of his team of prosecutors, Michael R. Dreeben, a leading expert in criminal law who has worked for another special counsel who investigated Mr. Trump, Robert S. Mueller III.

Among those in attendance were Jane Sullivan Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, who is married to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

In an orderly line outside along the side of the court, people were calmly waiting to listen to the arguments from the court’s public gallery. More than 100 people, many of them supporters of Mr. Trump, were in line as of 8:30 a.m. Reagan Pendarvis, 19, who had been waiting there since the middle of the night, said the first person in line had gotten there more than a day before the arguments began.

Mr. Pendarvis, a sophomore at the University of California, San Diego who is living in Washington for the spring semester, was wearing a black suit and bright red bow tie. He said he had been struggling to keep warm since he took his place in line.

Mr. Pendarvis, a supporter of Mr. Trump, said he thought that the cases brought against the former president were an uneven application of the law.

“I think a lot of the cases, especially that happen for Donald Trump, don’t really happen for Democrats on the other side,” he said. “That’s just my take on it.”

David Bolls, 42, and his brother, Jonathan, 43, both of Springfield, Va., also in line for the arguments, also contended that the prosecutions against Mr. Trump were an abuse of judicial power.

“For me, I want to see an even application of justice,” David Bolls said.

For others in line, the Supreme Court’s deliberations were not the main draw. Ellen Murphy, a longtime Washington resident, was trying to sell buttons she designs, though she acknowledged that it was unlikely she would be allowed in with all of her merchandise.

Dozens of the buttons, which said, “Immunize democracy now” and “Trump is toast” over a toaster with two slices of bread, were pinned to a green apron she was wearing.

“We lose our democracy,” Ms. Murphy said, “if the president can do whatever he wants just because he’s president.”

Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting.

Advertisement

Adam Liptak

What’s next: Much will turn on how quickly the court acts.

The justices heard arguments in the immunity case at a special session, the day after what had been the last scheduled argument of its term. Arguments heard in late April almost always yield decisions near the end of the court’s term, in late June or early July.

But a ruling in early summer, even if it categorically rejected Mr. Trump’s position, would make it hard to complete his trial before the election. Should Mr. Trump win at the polls, there is every reason to think he would scuttle the prosecution.

In cases that directly affected elections — in which the mechanisms of voting were at issue — the court has sometimes acted with unusual speed.

In 2000, in Bush v. Gore, the court issued its decision handing the presidency to George W. Bush the day after the justices heard arguments.

In a recent case concerning Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s primary ballot, the justices moved more slowly, but still at a relatively brisk pace. The court granted Mr. Trump’s petition seeking review just two days after he filed it , scheduled arguments for about a month later and issued its decision in his favor about a month after that.

In United States v. Nixon, the 1974 decision that ordered President Richard M. Nixon to comply with a subpoena for audiotapes of conversations with aides in the White House, the court also moved quickly , granting the special prosecutor’s request to bypass the appeals court a week after it was filed.

The court heard arguments about five weeks later — compared with some eight weeks in Mr. Trump’s immunity case. It issued its decision 16 days after the argument , and the trial was not delayed.

Abbie VanSickle

The oral argument lasted nearly three hours, as the justices tangled with a lawyer for the former president and a Justice Department lawyer. A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the idea of sweeping presidential immunity. However, several of them suggested an interest in drawing out what actions may be immune and what may not — a move that could delay the former president’s trial if the Supreme Court asks a lower court to revisit the issues.

Many of the justices seemed to be considering the idea that presidents should enjoy some form of protection against criminal prosecution. The devil, however, will be in the details: How should that protection extend?

And that question will have profound relevance not only for future presidents, but much more immediately for Donald Trump. The court could decide to draw those rules itself in a broad way for history. Or it could send this case back to a lower court to set the rules of what form immunity could take. If the case is sent back for further proceedings, it could have a dramatic effect on the timing of Trump’s trial, pushing it well past the election in November.

Looking back, one of the main points of discussion turned on the question of which situation would be worse: a world in which presidents, shorn of any legal protections against prosecution, were ceaselessly pursued in the courts by their rivals in a never-ending cycle of political retribution, or allowing presidents to be unbounded by criminal law and permitted to do whatever they wanted with impunity.

Charlie Savage

Sauer, Trump’s attorney, declines to offer a rebuttal. The argument is over.

If the court finds that there is some immunity for official actions, one of the most important questions will be whether prosecutors can still present evidence to the jury of Trump’s official actions (like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do certain things) as evidence that helps illuminate Trump’s knowledge and intent for his private acts as a candidate. Dreeben says the jury needs to understand the whole “integrated conspiracy” but prosecutors would accept a jury instruction in which the judge would say they cannot impose liability for the official actions but may consider them as evidence of his knowledge and intent for the other actions. That’s how courts handle protected speech that is evidence to a larger conspiracy, he notes.

Justice Barrett picks up the question of timing again. She suggests that if prosecutors want to take Trump quickly to trial, they could simply drop those parts of the indictment that seem to be his official acts as president and proceed with only those parts of the indictment that reflect Trump’s private actions taken as a candidate for office. Dreeben is not wild about that idea.

Dreeben suggests that allegations in the “private acts bucket,” as Justice Jackson just called it, would include things like the scheme to create fake electors and the way in which Trump fomented a mob of his supporters to violently attack the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Justice Barrett seems to signal that she is less likely to find that presidents have blanket immunity for their official acts. When Dreeben says the system needs to balance the effective functioning of the presidency and accountability for a former president under the rule of law, and the existing system does that pretty well or maybe needs a few ancillary rules but that is different from the “radical proposal” put forward by Trump’s legal team, she says: “I agree.”

Dreeben, in a balancing act that seems to acknowledge that the court is looking for some form of criminal immunity for presidents, says he is trying to do two things at once, neither of them easy. He wants to design a system to find some rules that preserve the “effective functioning of the presidency” but that still allows for “accountability” if presidents violated the law.

Kavanaugh asks Dreeben about Obama’s drone strike that killed an American citizen suspected of terrorism, Anwar al-Awlaki, which Trump’s lawyer invoked in his opening. Dreeben notes that the Office of Legal Counsel analyzed the question and found that the murder statute did not apply to presidents when they were acting under public authority, so authorizing the strike was lawful. This is the way the system can function, he said — the Justice Department analyzes laws carefully and with established principles.

Justice Kavanaugh signals that he is likely to find that presidents must have immunity for their official actions. He talks about how the threat of prosecution by independent counsels (under a law that lapsed in 1999) hampered Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton, and says a 1984 ruling upholding that structure as constitutional was one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. (Notably, Kavanaugh was a prosecutor on the staff of independent counsel Ken Starr during his investigation into President Bill Clinton, before becoming a White House lawyer under President George W. Bush.)

Dreeben tries to push back on Kavanaugh’s argument by saying that even after Watergate, even after all of the independent counsel investigations mentioned above, the legal system has survived without “having gone off on a runaway train” of actual criminal prosecutions against former presidents.

The Supreme Court rejected Bill Clinton’s claim of immunity.

In Clinton v. Jones in 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed a sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton to proceed while he was in office, discounting concerns that it would distract him from his official responsibilities. Both of his appointees, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, voted against him.

“The president is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court, adding, “We have never suggested that the president, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity.”

The case was in one sense harder than the one against Mr. Trump, as it involved a sitting president. In another sense, though, it was easier, as it concerned an episode said to have taken place before Mr. Clinton took office (Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee, said Mr. Clinton had made lewd advances in a hotel room when he was governor of the state).

The case is best remembered for a prediction in Justice Stevens’s majority opinion that “it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’s time.” In fact, it led to Mr. Clinton’s impeachment.

In the same paragraph, Justice Stevens made a second prediction.

“In the more than 200-year history of the Republic, only three sitting presidents have been subjected to suits for their private actions,” he wrote. “If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the presidency.”

Suits against Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman were dismissed, and one against President John F. Kennedy involving a car accident during his 1960 campaign was settled. The case against Mr. Clinton added a fourth.

Justice Stevens, who died in 2019, failed to anticipate the enormous volume of civil and criminal litigation in which Mr. Trump and his businesses have been named as defendants.

We are now over the two-hour mark of the Supreme Court’s arguments in the Trump immunity case. The Justice Department lawyer has continued to face skeptical questions from many of the court’s conservatives, several of whom appear particularly focused on how to draw the line between a president’s core powers and non-core powers. In other words, what actions by a president might be shielded from prosecution and what would not. The questioning suggests that some of the justices may favor a ruling that could lead to more lower-court proceedings, perhaps delaying the trial.

The Supreme Court’s relatively new process (coming out of Covid) of letting each justice ask questions at the end in order of seniority has an interesting consequence, as seen here. Dreeben kept wanting to say these things about government legal memos and to go into the details about the actions Trump is accused of taking, but the Republican-appointed justices kept cutting him off. It’s the turn of Kagan, a Democratic appointee, to ask any final questions she wants, and she is letting him talk on and on.

Much of the discussion this morning has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office. Alito and other conservatives on the court seem concerned that the Trump prosecutions will open the door to endless attacks against future presidents.

The other main topic of discussion has been whether presidents enjoy some form of immunity for carrying out their official duties and, if so, how those official actions are defined. That’s an important question for the Trump election case because Trump has claimed he was acting in his role as president when, by his own account, he sought to root out fraud in the 2020 vote count. It’s also important for a different reason: the justices could send the official acts question back to a lower court to sort out, and that process could take a long time, delaying the case's trial until after this year’s election.

Justice Alito suggests that there is a risk to our stable democracy if presidents who lose close elections would not be allowed to retire in peace but could face prosecution. He has essentially flipped the situation under consideration upside down: that Trump is being prosecuted for having used fraud to remain in power after losing a close election.

A part of this exchange between Justice Alito and the Justice Department's lawyer, Dreeben, gets at a pressure point in American-style democracy and the rule of law. One of the safeguards against illegitimate prosecutions of ex-presidents, Dreeben says, is that if the Justice Department has advised the president that doing something would be lawful, the department could not later turn around and prosecute the now-former president for relying on that advice and doing that thing.

Alito points out that this creates an incentive for presidents to appoint attorneys general who will just tell them that anything they want to do would be legal. Indeed — that is a critique of the Office of Legal Counsel system, in which politically appointed lawyers decide what the law means for the executive branch.

An example: During the George W. Bush administration, memos about post-9/11 surveillance and torture were written by a politically appointed lawyer with idiosyncratically broad views of a president’s supposed power, as commander in chief, to authorize violations of surveillance and torture laws. The Justice Department later withdrew those memos as espousing a false view of the law, but held that officials who had taken action based on those memos could not be charged with crimes.

Justice Alito suggests there are not enough legal safeguards in place to protect presidents against malicious prosecution if they don’t have some form of immunity. He tells Dreeben that the grand jury process isn’t much of a protection because prosecutors, as the saying goes, can indict a ham sandwich. When Dreeben tries to argue that prosecutors sometimes don’t indict people who don’t deserve it, Alito dismissively says, “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too.”

If you are just joining in, the justices are questioning the Justice Department lawyer, Michael Dreeben, about the government’s argument that former President Trump is not absolutely immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. Dreeben has faced skeptical questions from several of the conservative justices, including both Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, who have suggested that the fraud conspiracy statute being used against the former president is vague. That statute is central to the government’s case against Trump.

Justice Alito now joins Justice Kavanaugh in suggesting that the fraud conspiracy statute is very vague and broadly drawn. That is bad news for the indictment brought against Trump by Jack Smith, the special counsel.

The scope and viability of this fraud statute, which is absolutely central to the Trump indictment, wasn’t on the menu of issues seemingly at play in this hearing. Kavanaugh and Alito appear to have gone out of their way to question its use in the Trump case.

Justice Sotomayor points out that under the Trump team’s theory that a criminal statute has to clearly state that it applies to the presidency for it to cover a president’s official actions, there would essentially be no accountability at all. Because only a tiny handful of laws mention the president, that means a president could act contrary to them without violating them. As a result, the Senate could not even impeach a president for violating criminal statutes, she says — because he would not be violating those laws if they don’t apply to the president.

Dreeben is under heavy fire from the court’s conservatives.

The precedent most helpful to Trump: Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

In 1982, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald , the Supreme Court ruled that former President Richard M. Nixon had absolute immunity from civil lawsuits — ones brought by private litigants seeking money — for conduct “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”

The ruling is helpful to former President Donald J. Trump, establishing as it does that immunity can be expansive, lives on after a president leaves office and extends to the very limits of what may be said to be official conduct.

But the decision also falls well short of dictating the outcome in the case that is being argued on Thursday, which concerns a criminal prosecution, not a civil suit.

The 1982 case arose from a lawsuit brought by an Air Force analyst, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, who said he was fired in 1970 in retaliation for his criticism of cost overruns. By the time the Supreme Court acted, Nixon had been out of office for several years.

“In view of the special nature of the president’s constitutional office and functions,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote for the majority 5-to-4 decision, “we think it appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from damages liability” for Nixon’s official conduct, broadly defined.

But the decision drew a sharp line between civil suits, which it said can be abusive and harassing, and criminal prosecutions like the one Mr. Trump is facing.

“In view of the visibility of his office and the effect of his actions on countless people, the president would be an easily identifiable target for suits for civil damages,” Justice Powell wrote, adding, “The court has recognized before that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions.”

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger underscored the point in a concurring opinion. “The immunity is limited to civil damages claims,” he wrote.

Even in the context of civil suits, Nixon v. Fitzgerald conferred immunity only on conduct within the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties. Jack Smith, the special counsel, has said that Mr. Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy are well outside that line.

The Justice Department has already granted sitting presidents immunity while they are in office.

Former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that former presidents must enjoy “complete immunity” from prosecution for any crimes they committed in office would significantly expand the temporary immunity that sitting presidents already have.

Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that presidents are shielded from being prosecuted while in office, and no court has ever ruled that way. But political appointees in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, whose interpretations are binding on the executive branch, have declared that the Constitution implicitly establishes such immunity.

This argument boils down to practicalities of governance: The stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to carry out his duties, Robert G. Dixon Jr. , then the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a memo in September 1973 . This would prevent the executive branch “from accomplishing its constitutional functions” in a way that cannot “be justified by an overriding need,” he added.

Mr. Dixon, an appointee of President Richard M. Nixon, wrote his memo against the backdrop of the Watergate scandal, when Mr. Nixon faced a criminal investigation by a special counsel, Archibald Cox. The next month, Nixon’s solicitor general, Robert H. Bork , in a court brief , similarly argued for an “inference” that the Constitution makes sitting presidents immune from indictment and trial.

(That same month, Mr. Nixon had Mr. Cox fired in the so-called Saturday Night Massacre. Mr. Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned rather than carry out his orders to oust the prosecutor; Mr. Nixon then turned to Mr. Bork, the department’s No. 3, who proved willing to do it. Amid a political backlash, Mr. Nixon was forced to allow a new special counsel, Leon Jaworski , to resume the investigation.)

The question arose again a generation later, when President Bill Clinton faced an investigation by Kenneth Starr, an independent counsel, into the Whitewater land deal that morphed into an inquiry into his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. Randolph D. Moss , Mr. Clinton’s appointee to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, reviewed the Justice Department’s 1973 opinions and reaffirmed their conclusions .

Legal scholars, as well as staff for prosecutors investigating presidents, have disputed the legitimacy of that constitutional theory. In 1974, Mr. Jaworski received a memo from his staff saying he could, in fact, indict Mr. Nixon while he was in office, and he later made that case in a court brief .

And in a 56-page memo in 1998, Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative constitutional scholar whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, rejected the view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. Mr. Starr later said that he had concluded that he could indict Mr. Clinton.

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” Mr. Rotunda wrote. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

Mr. Starr commissioned the Rotunda memo as he was drafting a potential indictment of Mr. Clinton, and Mr. Starr decided that he could charge the president while in office. In the end, however, both Mr. Jaworski and Mr. Starr decided to let congressional impeachment proceedings play out and did not try to bring indictments while Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton remained in office.

The question may never be definitively tested in the courts. In 1999, Congress allowed a law that created independent counsels like Mr. Starr — prosecutors who do not report to the attorney general — to expire, and the Justice Department issued regulations to allow for the appointment of semiautonomous special counsels for inquiries into potential high-level wrongdoing in the executive branch.

Special counsels are, however, bound by Justice Departments policies and practices — including the Office of Legal Counsel’s proclamation that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from criminal indictment or trial.

Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage

Is there such a thing as executive immunity?

There are no direct precedents on the broad question of whether presidents have criminal immunity for their official actions.

The Supreme Court has held that presidents are absolutely immune from civil lawsuits related to their official acts , in part to protect them against ceaseless harassment and judicial scrutiny of their day-to-day decisions. The court has also held that presidents can be sued over their personal actions .

The Supreme Court has further found that while presidents are sometimes immune from judicial subpoenas requesting internal executive branch information, that privilege is not absolute. Even presidents, the court has decided, can be forced to obey a subpoena in a criminal case if the need for information is great enough.

But until Mr. Trump wound up in court, the Supreme Court has never had a reason to decide whether former presidents are protected from being prosecuted for official actions. The Justice Department has long maintained that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from prosecution because criminal charges would distract them from their constitutional functions. But since Mr. Trump is not in office, that is not an issue.

The closest the country has come to the prosecution of a former president over official actions came in 1974, when Richard M. Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached over the Watergate scandal. But a pardon by his successor, President Gerald R. Ford, protected Nixon from indictment by the Watergate special prosecutor.

Mr. Smith’s team has argued that Ford’s pardon — and Nixon’s acceptance of it — demonstrates that both men understood that Nixon was not already immune. Mr. Trump’s team has sought to counter that point by arguing — inaccurately — that Nixon faced potential criminal charges only over private actions, like tax fraud. But the special prosecutor weighed charging Nixon with abusing his office to obstruct justice.

Mr. Trump’s team has argued that denying his claims risks unleashing a routine practice of prosecuting former presidents for partisan reasons. But Mr. Smith’s team has argued that if courts endorse Mr. Trump’s theory, then future presidents who are confident of surviving impeachment could, with impunity, commit any number of crimes in connection with their official actions.

“Such a result would severely undermine the compelling public interest in the rule of law and criminal accountability,” prosecutors wrote.

Hypothetical questions test the limits of Trump’s immunity claim.

An exchange during an appeals court argument in January about a hypothetical political assassination tested former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for his official conduct.

His lawyer, D. John Sauer, has urged the justices to consider only what he is actually accused of: plotting to subvert the 2020 election. But hypothetical questions are routine at the Supreme Court, and they have a way of illuminating the contours and implications of legal theories.

That is what happened in January, when Judge Florence Y. Pan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had to press Mr. Sauer to get an answer to a hypothetical question: Are former presidents absolutely immune from prosecution, even for murders they ordered while in office?

“I asked you a yes-or-no question,” Judge Pan said. “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

Mr. Sauer said his answer was a “qualified yes,” by which he meant no. He explained that prosecution would be permitted only if the president were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

Impeachments of presidents are rare: There have been four in the history of the Republic, two of them of Mr. Trump. The number of convictions, which require a two-thirds majority of the Senate: zero.

Mr. Sauer’s statement called to mind a 2019 federal appeals court argument over whether Mr. Trump could block state prosecutors from obtaining his tax and business records. He maintained that he was immune not only from prosecution but also from criminal investigation so long as he was president.

At that time, Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit pressed William S. Consovoy, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, asking about his client’s famous statement that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing political support.

“Local authorities couldn’t investigate?” Judge Chin asked, adding: “Nothing could be done? That’s your position?”

“That is correct,” said Mr. Consovoy. “That is correct.”

This headline followed: “If Trump Shoots Someone on 5th Ave., Does He Have Immunity? His Lawyer Says Yes.”

For his part, Mr. Sauer does not seem eager to revisit the question about assassinations. Indeed, in asking the Supreme Court to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, Mr. Sauer urged the justices not to be distracted by “lurid hypotheticals” that “almost certainly never will occur.”

What counts as an official act as president?

Another issue that has come up in lower courts in this case was what counted as an official act for a president, as opposed to a private action that was not connected to his constitutional responsibilities.

If the justices want to dispose of the dispute without definitively ruling on whether presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts, they could do so by finding that the specific steps former President Donald J. Trump took to remain in office that are cited in the federal indictment were not official actions. If so, the broader immunity question would not matter, and the prosecution could proceed.

The acts by Mr. Trump cited in the indictment include using deceit to organize fake slates of electors and to try to get state officials to subvert legitimate election results; trying to get the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to help fraudulently alter the results; directing his supporters to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; and exploiting the violence and chaos of their ensuing riot.

In its court filings, Mr. Trump’s team has sought to reframe those accusations not only as official actions, but innocuous or even admirable ones.

“All five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts,” they wrote. “They all reflect President Trump’s efforts and duties, squarely as chief executive of the United States, to advocate for and defend the integrity of the federal election, in accord with his view that it was tainted by fraud and irregularity.”

Mr. Smith’s team has argued that they should be seen as the efforts of a person seeking office, not of an officeholder carrying out government responsibilities.

“Those alleged acts were carried out by and on behalf of the defendant in his capacity as a candidate, and the extensive involvement of private attorneys and campaign staff in procuring the fraudulent slates as alleged in the indictment underscores that those activities were not within the outer perimeter of the office of the presidency,” they wrote.

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing Mr. Trump’s case in Federal District Court in Washington, issued her ruling rejecting Mr. Trump’s immunity claim without including any detailed analysis of whether his acts were “official.”

If the Supreme Court were to send the matter back to her to take a stab at answering that question before restarting the appeals process, Mr. Trump will, at a minimum, have used up additional valuable time that could help push any trial past the election.

Noah Weiland and Alan Feuer

Here are the lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court.

The two lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court on Thursday have each played a role in some of the defining legal battles stemming from Mr. Trump’s term in office.

Arguing the case for the special counsel Jack Smith will be Michael Dreeben, who worked for a different special counsel’s office that scrutinized Mr. Trump’s presidency: Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into links between Russia and associates of Mr. Trump. Mr. Dreeben, one of the nation’s leading criminal law experts, has made more than 100 oral arguments before the Supreme Court, including when he served as deputy solicitor general.

On Mr. Mueller’s team, he handled pretrial litigation, defending the scope of the investigation and preventing the office from losing cases on appeal. He also helped with a second part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, examining whether Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct the inquiry in his dealings with associates involved in the case.

Mr. Dreeben, who was heavily involved in the writing of Mr. Mueller’s final report on his investigation, supported an interpretation of presidential power that emphasized limits on what a president could do while exercising his or her powers, according to “Where Law Ends,” a book written by Andrew Weissmann, another prosecutor on Mr. Mueller’s team.

After Mr. Mueller’s investigation concluded, Mr. Dreeben took a teaching position at Georgetown University’s law school and returned to private practice at O’Melveny, arguing in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of the city of Austin over a First Amendment dispute about the placement of digital billboards.

Opposing Mr. Dreeben in front of the Supreme Court will be D. John Sauer, a lawyer based in St. Louis who once served as the solicitor general of Missouri. Mr. Sauer joined Mr. Trump’s legal team late last year to handle appellate matters, including his challenge to a gag order imposed on him in the election case in Washington.

As Missouri’s solicitor general, Mr. Sauer took part in a last-ditch effort to keep Mr. Trump in power after his defeat in the 2020 election, filing a motion on behalf of his state and five others in support of an attempt by Texas to have the Supreme Court toss out the results of the vote count in several key swing states.

He also joined in an unsuccessful bid with Texas in asking the Supreme Court to stop the Biden administration from rescinding a Trump-era immigration program that forces certain asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to await approval in Mexico.

When he left the solicitor general’s office last January, Mr. Sauer, who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, returned to his private firm, the James Otis Law Group. The firm is named after a prominent Revolutionary War-era lawyer who built a career out of challenging abuses by British colonial forces.

To justify his defense in the immunity case, Trump turns to a familiar tactic.

When the Supreme Court considers Donald J. Trump’s sweeping claims of executive immunity on Thursday, it will break new legal ground, mulling for the first time the question of whether a former president can avoid being prosecuted for things he did in office.

But in coming up with the argument, Mr. Trump used a tactic on which he has often leaned in his life as a businessman and politician: He flipped the facts on their head in an effort to create a different reality.

At the core of his immunity defense is a claim that seeks to upend the story told by federal prosecutors in an indictment charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election. In that indictment, prosecutors described a criminal conspiracy by Mr. Trump to subvert the election results and stay in power.

In Mr. Trump’s telling, however, those same events are official acts that he undertook as president to safeguard the integrity of the race and cannot be subject to prosecution.

In many ways, Mr. Trump’s immunity claim is breathtaking. In one instance, his lawyers went so far as to say that a president could not be prosecuted even for using the military to assassinate a rival unless he was first impeached.

But the wholesale rewriting of the government’s accusations — which first appeared six months ago in Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss the election interference case — may be the most audacious part of his defense. It was certainly a requisite step his lawyers had to take to advance the immunity argument.

Other courts have ruled that presidents enjoy limited immunity from civil lawsuits for things they did as part of the formal responsibilities of their job. To extend that legal concept to criminal charges, Mr. Trump’s lawyers needed to reframe all of the allegations lodged against him in the election interference case as official acts of his presidency rather than as the actions of a candidate misusing his power.