how do we travel to far away places

• ABBREVIATIONS
• BIOGRAPHIES
• CALCULATORS
• CONVERSIONS
• DEFINITIONS

      PDF       Playlist    

Far Away Places

Bing crosby , ken darby choir & instrumental group.

About Far Away Places

"Far Away Places" is an American popular song. It was written by Joan Whitney and Alex Kramer and published in 1948. The recording by Bing Crosby & The Ken Darby Choir was recorded on November 25, 1948 and released by Decca Records as catalog number 24532. It first reached the Billboard magazine Best Seller chart on December 31, 1948 and lasted 18 weeks on the chart, peaking at #2. The recording by Margaret Whiting was released by Capitol Records as catalog number 15278. It first reached the Billboard magazine Best Seller chart on December 17, 1948 and lasted 15 weeks on the chart, peaking at #3. The recording by Perry Como was released by RCA Victor as catalog number 20-3316. It first reached the Billboard magazine Best Seller chart on January 7, 1949 and lasted 16 weeks on the chart, peaking at #6. The recording by Dinah Shore was released by Columbia Records as catalog number 38356. It reached the Billboard magazine Best Seller chart on January 28, 1949 at #28 on its only week on the chart.   more »

 Watch: New Singing Lesson Videos Can Make Anyone A Great Singer

 become a better singer in only 30 days , with easy video lessons.

Bing Crosby

Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby (May 3, 1903 – October 14, 1977) was an American singer and actor. Crosby's trademark bass-baritone voice made him one of the best-selling recording artists of the 20th century, with over half a billion records in circulation. more »

Follow 31 fans

Sheet Music       PDF     Playlist  

Written by: ALEX KRAMER, JOAN WHITNEY

Lyrics © BOURNE CO.

Lyrics Licensed & Provided by LyricFind

10 facts about this song

Discuss the far away places lyrics with the community:.

Report Comment

We're doing our best to make sure our content is useful, accurate and safe. If by any chance you spot an inappropriate comment while navigating through our website please use this form to let us know, and we'll take care of it shortly.

You need to be logged in to favorite .

Create a new account.

Your name: * Required

Your email address: * Required

Pick a user name: * Required

Username: * Required

Password: * Required

Forgot your password?    Retrieve it

Use the citation below to add these lyrics to your bibliography:

Style: MLA Chicago APA

"Far Away Places Lyrics." Lyrics.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2024. Web. 3 Jul 2024. < https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/2533759/Bing+Crosby/Far+Away+Places >.

Missing lyrics by Bing Crosby?

Know any other songs by bing crosby don't keep it to yourself, image credit, the web's largest resource for, music, songs & lyrics, a member of the stands4 network, more tracks from the album, sentimental journey: pop vocal classics, vol. 1-4.

• #1 Sentimental Journey
• #2 Swinging on a Star
• #3 You'll Never Know
• #4 The Gypsy
• #5 Paper Doll
• #6 Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief
• #8 A Cottage for Sale
• #9 The Trolley Song
• #10 I've Heard That Song Before
• #13 I'll Walk Alone
• #16 Stormy Weather
• #17 Night and Day
• #19 Far Away Places
• #20 Mañana (Is Soon Enough for Me)
• #21 Love Somebody
• #22 Buttons and Bows
• #24 Tennessee Waltz
• #25 My Foolish Heart
• #26 That's My Desire
• #27 A Little Bird Told Me
• #29 If I Knew You Were Comin' I'd've Baked a Cake
• #30 Little White Lies
• #31 It's Magic
• #32 A Tree in the Meadow
• #33 Goodnight Irene
• #34 Music! Music! Music!
• #35 Mam'selle
• #37 Because of You
• #40 Come On-A My House
• #41 Kiss of Fire
• #42 I Apologize
• #43 The Song from Moulin Rouge (Where Is Your Heart?)
• #44 You Belong to Me
• #45 Wheel of Fortune
• #46 I Get Ideas
• #47 Little Things Mean a Lot
• #48 That's Amore
• #49 Here in My Heart
• #50 How High the Moon
• #51 Hold My Hand
• #52 (Why Did I Tell You I Was Going to) Shanghai
• #53 My Heart Cries for You
• #54 Wish You Were Here
• #55 Mack the Knife
• #58 Let Me Go Lover
• #59 What a Diff'rence a Day Made
• #60 On the Street Where You Live
• #61 Singing the Blues
• #62 Chances Are
• #63 Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)
• #64 The Wayward Wind
• #65 Memories Are Made of This
• #66 Old Cape Cod
• #67 The Man That Got Away
• #68 Fascination
• #69 I Could Have Danced All Night
• #70 Just in Time
• #71 That Old Black Magic

Browse Lyrics.com

Our awesome collection of, promoted songs.

Get promoted 

Are you a music master?

What musician had a cameo role in silence of the lambs, free, no signup required :, add to chrome, add to firefox, don't miss bing crosby's, upcoming events.

On Radio Right Now

Powered by OnRad.io

Think you know music? Test your MusicIQ here!

Travel Inspiration: Why Do People Travel (& Why to Travel Far)

By Author Jurga

Posted on Last updated: December 19, 2022

Wondering why do people travel? Or why would anyone travel far when you can explore places close to home?

It’s the question I often get, usually from my own family and friends. Why do you travel? And why do you have to travel so far?

There are so many beautiful places close to home and you definitely haven’t seen it all yet… So why in the world do you have to take those long-haul flights, deal with jet lag and drag your kids to the other side of the world?!

So in this article, we tell you WHY. Not just why we travel, but also why we travel far. Find out!

Close to home is not enough

We live in Belgium, in the heart of Europe. And we have some of the most beautiful cities such as Brussels , Antwerp , or Bruges at our doorstep. Even places like Paris , London , or Amsterdam are just a few hours away… Yet many of our trips are to the other side of the world. I won’t say that Europe is not worth seeing – it absolutely is!

I love Europe , it’s my favorite continent in the entire world and there is just no other place like it… You can get in a car early in the morning, start driving, and by the end of the day you have passed 6 countries. Each of them with a different language, different architecture, local food, and different traditions and habits… And I’m not even talking about all the stunning landscapes you see along the way…

We live close to the Dutch border. If we drive just 15-20 minutes, we’re abroad. We share the same language with the Netherlands, but that’s about it. The buildings are different, the street signs, the food, even the landscape is different. The moment you pass the border, you just know that you are abroad…

We have seen a lot of Europe and we have enjoyed each and every one of our trips. We love going to Paris, to Normandy or to the South of France. Switzerland is our absolute favorite mountain destination and we love to go back whenever we get the chance.

We also explore the Netherlands and Belgium as much as we can. London and Rome are amongst our absolute favorite cities. We love Italian food and the charming old towns of Tuscany that have no equals anywhere in the world…

So why travel any further?

Why do we travel far

There are just so many experiences that you cannot have close to home, no matter how much you try.

There are no geysers or icebergs in Belgium. And I don’t have to tell you that you won’t run into a bear or a bison in a forest outside Brussels…

Although we do get an occasional visit of a squirrel or a deer in our garden, it’s just not the same as seeing kangaroos outside your bedroom window first thing in the morning…

We could take the kids to the zoo (and we do), but it will never compare to seeing a herd of desert elephants on an African safari or cuddling a koala in Australia…

And no matter how many aquariums we visit, it will never come even close to an experience of snorkeling amongst the colorful fish in the Grand Barrier Reef or watching a whale jump just meters away from your little boat in Canada.

There are stunning sand dunes in the Curonian Spit in Lithuani a where I come from. But they just don’t color bright red as the sand dunes in the Sossusvlei in Namibia do.

And no matter how hot European summers can be, it will never feel the same as the Red Centre of Australia …

You cannot experience African sunsets or Namibian night sky just by looking at the pictures. And there are no words to even try to describe the amazing spectacle of the  Northern Lights in Tromso …

You’ll find some amazingly beautiful scenery in Europe, but we have no canyons or deserts here. And yes, you do need to go all the way to the other side of the world in order to see wild penguins on a beach on a warm summer day (unless you live in South Africa, of course).

We have an amazing cultural diversity here in Europe, but traveling is also about experiencing other cultures in their own local environment.

Chinatown in San Francisco is nothing like a real town in China! And Europeans just don’t carry wetsuits and surfboards in the trunk of their car ‘just in case’ as many Australians do…

We don’t take siestas and close all the shops every noon here in Western Europe as they do in Italy or Spain.

The traffic can be a mess around Antwerp or Brussels, but try and drive in India for a day and you’ll know what real chaos on the roads means.

Driving through the desert in Namibia is yet another experience. How many places do you know where you can drive for half a day and not see another car?!

And no matter how good the food in Belgium, France, or Italy is, it’s a whole other experience to taste cepelinai in Lithuania , a crocodile steak in South Africa, a snake drink in China or try some street food in Asia…

And don’t go asking for crab cakes or clam chowder in Europe, just as you won’t quickly find Gentse Waterzooi in the U.S.

When was the last time you did something for the first time?

When you travel, there are so many first times . Traveling is all about the first times. And I remember them all as if it was yesterday…

The first time I saw the Eiffel Tower in Paris or the Statue of Liberty in NYC . The first time we rode a donkey in Cyprus and mine refused to walk… Or when I put my head underwater and discovered snorkeling for the first time – a whole new world opened up to me…

Or that time when we had the whole island to ourselves in the Caribbean (and we were hoping that they wouldn’t forget to pick us up from there in the evening)…

Or the first time we rode a hot air balloon and landed in a field amidst the cows… And I’ll never forget the first time I reached the top of a 12,000 ft mountain in the Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado – exhausted, but so proud that I made it…

There are so many memories, so many first times… And there’s just no way to experience it all without leaving your comfort zone and traveling (far).

This is why we travel far. This is why nearby is not enough. And this is why we will jump on a plane again and again and head to the other side of the globe looking for many more first times…

READ ALSO: Our Favorite Places in the World

If you found this post helpful, don’t forget to bookmark it and share it with your friends. Are you on Pinterest? Pin these images!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Thursday 2nd of April 2020

i read your article and i agree with you on many things.

traveling should be exiting and a adventure. its all about to see new faces and places and to have a new perspective. to maybe realize how well i do in my life compared to other people and to become more satisfied with my own life. i agree there are many exotic things one can not see in its own country.

but i disagree that one has to travel far away to have all the travel adventures. i certainly can only speak for myself but when i think why do i have to go see the badlands in canada or bangkok or patagonia when there are similar things in europe?

it also depends how you travel. i usually travel by foot, with my mountanbike or if far away by train. i dont like to fly so i dont use planes. i dont see the point to burn ten thousand of fossils oils just to go far away. so i feel when i dont fly its more a adventure because i get to see everything in between the destination. i feel thats more a adventure than this planned, expensive, fast stress paced flying where so many things happen that you can not control.

for me traveling is also to feel free to go whereever you want whenever i want. and when i travel by foot or bike i can do that.

i once travelled to argentina and liked it, especially the food :) but when i came back home i just asked myself was it really worth it? why would i go there? i just went there because some friends knew argentina and they proposed argentina. so that made me think about travelling and the sense to travel.

Friday 3rd of April 2020

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Cavo. Everyone travels differently and I agree with you that slow travel - by bike or on foot - is a great way to explore places deeper. It's not for everyone, but I think it can be amazing indeed.

As for where to travel, the whole point of my article was to say that there are simply so many things that you cannot find without traveling far. We can find amazing food, stunning architecture and history here in Western Europe, and also some jaw-dropping scenery in places like Norway, Switzerland, Austria, or the Italian Dolomites (to mention just a few). But there are no bison roaming freely here as in Yellowstone, no lions or leopards like on a safari in Africa, no Northern Lights as in Iceland or Northern Norway and no icebergs as in Ilulissat Icefjord in Greenland or in Antarctica...

No matter where you live, you just cannot experience everything that our world has to offer. And that's why, once in a while, we still choose to travel far.

But no, you don't have to travel to the other side of the world in order to enjoy travel and have great adventures. I wish you many more amazing travel experiences in the future - no matter where and how you choose to explore! The world is so beautiful and there is so much to discover - far and nearby. Happy travels!

Friday 4th of August 2017

So many wonderful and unique locations!

Authentic Travels

Monday 15th of August 2016

A question I often get ... "Why a hell do you go so far?" and I would add "Why a hell do you stay for so long? .. aren't 2 weeks enough for you?" .... well no, I dream big !

I can certainly relate!

Katie @ The Budget Backpack

Sunday 14th of August 2016

You're so right. I moved across the globe from Boston to Korea back in 2010 and was hit with the same "why?" type questions. I find that they often come from people who haven't traveled far yet, so they don't have that wonderful perspective of 'doing something for the first time.' Once you have that experience, it really becomes obvious as to why we love to go so far and so often!

Korea - why? Just kidding. :) Sounds like a great experience!

Saturday 13th of August 2016

Fantastic article, very relatable. Impressive photos too! My family asks me this questions all the time...I hope one day they understand!

Thanks, Briana. I think that some people will never understand - they're just as happy to stay home as we are to travel. You have it or you don't. Or you go on a trip once and it changes you forever.

Distance From To - Calculate distance between two addresses, cities, states, zipcodes, or locations

Enter a city, a zipcode, or an address in both the Distance From and the Distance To address inputs. Click Calculate Distance, and the tool will place a marker at each of the two addresses on the map along with a line between them. The distance between them will appear just above the map in both miles and kilometers. The tool is useful for estimating the mileage of a flight, drive, or walk. Can easily determine the distance between 2 cities as well.

Other tools to help with distance questions

In addition to this tool we also offer a couple other tools that can help find the distance on a map. You can use the mileage calculator to compare the difference between driving or flying between 2 cities. If on the other hand you want to click multiple points on the map in order to find the distance of the entire line you can do that with the distance calculator . We are always trying to find better ways to provide you with the information you need. If you have a suggestion please let us know.

Distance Calculator – How far is it?

The Distance Calculator can find distance between any two cities or locations available in The World Clock

The distance is calculated in kilometers, miles and nautical miles, and the initial compass bearing/heading from the origin to the destination. It will also display local time in each of the locations.

From location

To location.

Need some help?

More Information

• About the World Clock
• Daylight Saving Time
• Time Zone Abbreviations
• Time Tools Overview

Related Links

• See cities close to a location
• Day and Night World Map – See which parts of the Earth are currently illuminated by the Sun.
• About the Distance Graph

Related Time Zone Tools

• Event Time Announcer – Show local times worldwide for your event.
• Meeting Planner – The best times for your meeting across time zones

• Coordinates
• Language (EN)

Map Distance Calculator

You can draw multiple circles, distances, areas or elevations, import/export data save and edit them later with a larger map! Try Calcmaps PRO

Note: To measure the distance on the google maps distance calculator tool. First zoom in, or enter the address of your starting point. Then draw a route by clicking on the starting point, followed by all the subsequent points you want to measure. You can calculate the length of a path, running route, fence, border, or the perimeter of any object that appears on a google map. The distance calculator will then display a measurement of the length in feet, meters, miles and kilometers.

Share using this link

Distance Converters

• South America
• United States
• TRAVEL GEAR
• Privacy Policy

• PHILIPPINES
• NETHERLANDS
• UNITED STATES
• OFF THE BEATEN PATH
• Responsible travel
• Animal tourism
• Eco friendly products
• Interview series

Most Popular Posts , RESPONSIBLE TOURISM , Sustainability , TRAVEL TIPS

How to travel locally: a responsible guide to local travel.

For many, the only way to get on an adventure these days is to travel locally. And there are so many benefits of traveling locally both for the communities, for yourself, and for the small local tourism businesses .

As the travel addict I am, I have always traveled locally during weekends, no matter where I have lived. My biggest freedom has always been my car.

Not because I don’t enjoy public transport, but with limited of time in the weekends, it gives the freedom to travel off the beaten path, as well as when and where I want. It also makes it easy to get to campgrounds to save money on accommodation.

While I’ve been living in Spain, another important factor for me to have a car, is that I can’t bring my dog Ayla on buses and trains without having her in a cage. And trust me, I can’t carry an 18 kilos dog in a cage plus my own stash.

Growing up with most of my family abroad, also made me explore a lot of the “touristy” things whenever we had family visits. This is something I’ve definitely taken with me in life and that I enjoy a lot.

So while I can’t travel far, I like to travel near. There is so much to explore no matter where you live so I made this guide to make it easier for you too to travel locally wherever you live. With or without a car.

Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links. That means that if you make a purchase through one of those links, I will get a small commission at no extra cost to you. If you have any questions about these services or products, feel free to ask me.

Benefits of traveling locally

Before we look at how to travel locally, I want to highlight some of the amazing benefits of local travel. It’s always exotic to travel far away, but believe me, you can find quite so exotic experiences close to home too. Most countries are very different from place to place.

Like where I live, in Spain, I can go to the desert, to the beach, to pine forests, or to treeless mountain tops. I can explore rivers, canyons, islands, and caves. The villages in Andalusia are completely different from the villages north in the country. Architecture change and so does customs, fiestas, and traditions.

You might not have the same in your country, but I’m sure you have a lot of variety to explore if you look for it. Let’s look at the benefits of local travel.

While it might be fun to travel to another continent and different culture, there is no denying that plane tickets are expensive and the cost of travel is high.

You can save quite a lot of money by traveling locally as the travel distance is shorter. Whether you pay for petrol or the bus, it is definitely cheaper than getting to and from the airport, flights, etc.

But you can also bring food from home if you’re staying in an apartment with kitchen or a campground.

Since you know the language and the norms of your country, you are highly unlikely to be scammed too. Not a bad thing!

Eco friendly

While you travel by land (or boat if you go to an island), you are way more eco friendly than if you travel by air. With public transport being the most eco friendly transport, you shouldn’t feel guilty about driving a car either.

There are also shared drive opportunities like BlaBlaCar in Europe, which gives you the opportunity to take passengers. That way you share the costs and the carbon emissions per person.

In need of an eco friendly backpack? Find the best ones here.

Learn about your local area

I’m sure you can still learn a lot about your local area’s history and traditions. I know I always learn new things when I’m out traveling locally.

Either because I talk to locals where I go or because I visit a museum or a landmark. Often, I visit natural areas where there are signs with information about the history, geography, flora, or fauna in the area.

You can also go on guided city tours and learn a lot from them! You might even be surprised by what you learn.

Support small local businesses

By traveling locally, you will also support small local businesses like restaurants, cafes, and museums. Especially post Covid19, they are in great need of support as international tourism isn’t the greatest.

Look for local artists and artisan shops where you go, have a chat with them about their work, and buy a new piece of art for your home or as a gift.

Choose small locally owned accommodation to make sure the money for your stay remains in the village, town, or city you’re visiting.

Discover the beauty of your own backyard

Finally, there is nothing like really discovering the beauty of your own backyard! I talk with so many people that overlook what they have at home. Think about what you like about traveling abroad and look for that in your own country.

You might not have palm trees and beaches, but you might have lakes and rivers. You might not have mountains of 5000 meters of altitude, but I’m sure you have a smaller top you can walk, unless you live in Denmark.

Denmark’s highest natural spot is actually only 170,89 meters (561 ft.) above sea level. But make sure you at least get there if you do live in Denmark!

You can Google tourist spots in your own country and check out if you have been everywhere (most likely you haven’t).

How to travel locally

There are so many places you can discover close to home no matter where you live, I’m sure there is a great variety in nature scene, many undiscovered towns and cities, and new corners of your own city you might not have explored yet.

Get on the train

One great way to travel locally is to jump on the train and see where it takes you. You can take the train for days and weeks and jump off random places.

I love to see on Google Maps where the train is heading and look up different places on the way to see if I want to explore any of them.

Getting the train is a really relaxing way to travel as you can listen to music, read a book, look out of the window, chat with other passengers, or watch a movie on your phone or tablet.

MAKE SURE TO CHECK OUT:

20 Best Travel Books To Fuel Your Wanderlust

Go on a road trip

If you prefer to take the car instead of the train, go on a road trip! Check on the map for places you haven’t been before or places you would love to revisit and make a fun road trip route across your country.

Or if you don’t want to plan too much, then don’t! Just look up places as you go, take a spontaneous turn towards a sign that seems fun, or ask the locals on the way where they recommend you visit next.

The advantage of traveling by car, is that you can leave when you want to without being attached to train times or train destinations.

As I said before, the car gives so much freedom and you can get to places really off the beaten path!

Going camping is a great and cheap way to travel locally. Some countries even allow free camping in nature which makes it a great combination with hiking or a few days at a lake. You can even do a road trip and camp different places along the way.

Camping definitely helps keeping the costs low and whether you’re at a camp ground or in nature it will really help you wind down. If you travel by car and explore different places, it gives a completely different view on your destination.

When I go camping it’s like the world around me slows down and I can really enjoy the moment as the distractions of the material world are minimized.

READ: Eco friendly camping gear list and sustainable packing list & accessories

Go beach camping

If you have beaches in your country where you are allowed to camp, there is nothing better than beach camping!

Waking up to the waves crashing onto the beach, running down to the water in the crisp morning air jumping into the clear, cooling water.

Spending the days snorkeling, jumping from cliffs, and having a barbecue on the beach before sunset when it’s time to make a bonfire and get out the guitar for some tunes.

I know I want to go beach camping right now!

If you don’t have beach, you might have a lake with a beach or nearby forested area where you can pitch the tent.

Hit the hiking trails

I’m sure there are plenty of hiking opportunities you can explore wherever you live. It doesn’t have to be mountain tops, it could be forest hikes or coastal hikes.

Hiking is a great activity I often see people do only when traveling to far away destinations. However, the benefits of hiking are huge both mentally and physically.

Who doesn’t love to explore new spots in nature? I know I do! I don’t think there has been one single year here in Spain where I haven’t discovered one or more new hiking trails that have blown me away!

When I lived in Norway the same. So do some research, get out there, and hit those trails!

Visit museums

If you’re not much of an outdoorsy person, there are still plenty of things to do locally. Have you been to all the museums in your region? I’m sure you’ll find something of interest that you haven’t explored yet.

Either in the city you live in or the surrounding cities. There are so many different kinds of museums where you can learn about your country’s history and background but also about the city or place the museum is situated.

Visiting museums is also a great way to support tourism businesses.

Explore new beaches

If you live in a country with beaches, spend the summer exploring as many new beaches as possible. What I love about beaches is that they are all different and have their own charm.

Especially the ones off the beaten path, the virgin beaches that are a bit harder to get to. Search on the internet and look past the first and second page on Google and you might find some real treasures.

Discover rivers and lakes

Rivers and lakes are always a winner. Whether it’s a hot summer day or they’re capped in ice and snow in winter. I love looking at Google Maps and search for those blue spots on the map and research if they are worth visiting.

They usually are. Where the water flows, there is life. It’s dynamic and beautiful and it never fails.

In the summer months, bring your swimwear and towel and go searching for the best swimming holes!

Maybe you even have rivers that go through canyons that you can hike?

Uncover your local national parks

Do you have any national parks or nature reserves around where you live?

These are usually quite big areas and even though you’ve been there before, I’m sure you haven’t been everywhere!

Go explore, find new hidden corners that you haven’t been to before or revisit you favorite spots. It’s always good to be in nature. If you do a bit of research before you go, you might learn something new about it too.

I find that I often know very little about the places nearby. They’re just there. And I enjoy them, but as I don’t travel far to get there I hardly ever research them up front. It is definitely worth it though and since I started this blog, I have done it a lot more!

Be a tourist in your own city

If you live in a city, spend time exploring it as if it was the first time you visited. Stay in a local hostel or hotel and visit all the attractions you would have visited if you were a tourist.

Join local guided tours, visit museums, landmarks, and viewpoints. Try out new restaurants and cafes. Try your city or country’s specialties that you normally would only make at home. Visit a new neighborhood.

Talk to people you meet as you would have if you were traveling. Be curious and see your city with new eyes. It is incredible how rewarding this can be!

You could also explore the city in a different way by longboarding, rollerblading, or biking around if the city is suitable for it.

A few years ago I went longboarding around Malaga city and it was really nice to see the city from a different perspective.

By exploring your own city as a tourist, you might even find new favorite corners that you will return to.

Visit new towns and cities

I’m sure there are towns and cities you haven’t visited yet that have a lot to offer! Whether you’re into architecture, history, cafe life, food, or shopping, it’s always fun to explore a new town, village, or city.

Get a map, find out what the best tourist spots are, look for hidden treasures, and wander the back streets.

Spend time, find its charm, and enjoy!

Local travel should also be done responsibly

Remember that even though you travel locally, it’s important to practice responsible tourism . There are always different norms in different parts of the country and different cities and towns can have different rules.

As an example, when I went to Toledo earlier this year, I had to pour water over Ayla’s pee. I’ve never heard of that other places in Spain. But it was still something I did every time she sat down doing her business.

Bring a reusable water bottle

Whether you travel locally or not, a reusable water bottle is always a great way to avoid single use plastic bottles. I always bring one with me.

Locally, I use the Brita filtered water bottle or the Greens Steel water bottle . Both bottles keep the temperature of the water all day which is awesome!

Tap water in Spain is safe to drink and I don’t have to filter it, but it never harms to do it. The Brita bottle is also easier to drink out of if I’m driving as I can open it with pushing the button on the lid and I don’t have to tip it to drink.

Avoid animal tourism

When traveling locally it is just as important to avoid unethical animal tourism. This could be horse carriage rides, visiting zoos, and aquariums. Some places you can ride animals as a tourist attraction and you should most likely stay away from that activity too.

If animals are exploited or asked to do things that are not natural to them so that tourists (local or not) can enjoy them, then it’s not ethical.

You can read more about unethical animal tourism and what to do instead here .

Respect the environment

If you are out exploring national parks, beaches or mountains it is natural to think about respecting the environment by staying on the marked trails, not leaving your waste behind and also pick up after others when you come over it.

But also in the cities and small towns and villages you should make an effort to keep it clean.

It is a good idea to always have a bag for rubbish in your backpack or bag so that you can store it there if it’s long until the next rubbish bin. If you are in a city where you can sort your waste, make sure you follow the guidelines.

There are also a few things you can bring with you to avoid plastic usage other than a reusable water bottle, like a metal straw and a tote bag for shopping.

While camping, try to bring as little single use plastic elements as possible. You can take plates, cups, knives, and forks from home.

Reflections on local travel

There are so many fun ways to travel locally and there is no reason not to do it as often as you can. For me, it helps to keep my wanderlust in balance when I’m “stuck at home” and I’m sure it will help you too!

Besides, there are so many positive benefits of local travel that there is no reason not to.

Let me know in the comments if you like to travel locally and if you have any other ideas than the ones already mentioned!

Did you like this? Pin it for later!

Email address:

30 thoughts on “ How to travel locally: A responsible guide to local travel ”

I absolutely LOVE this!!!! We can help to make the difference and support our local communities by traveling localy. I live in a beautiful area in Florida and I haven’t had the chance to explore. I am starting to explore more now and be alocal tourist in my own town. Thanks for this article.

I’m so glad you liked it! Florida must be amazing to explore, make sure to find some hidden gems for when I come and visit in the future 🙂

I would love to start travelling more locally, I never realized how beautiful my own province was. You’re so right that it also saves a lot of money, and is just way less stressful!

It’s easy to take what you have in your own backyard for granted. I hope you get to do some amazing local travel this year! 🙂

Sometimes we do not even realize the gems that we have in our backyard! Now it’s a good time to do it! Love the tips!

I know, but there are so many pleasant surprises once you do explore them:)

It can be so easy to assume that travel adventures always need to take place in a foreign country and to forget to explore your own backyard. We’re looking forward to discovering more local gems in the UK this summer.

The UK have so many wonderful places to explore! I’m sure you will have an amazing summer:)

Thank you for this post…. I think if the lack of travel has taught us anything, it’s how much we LOVE travel!! For me, it’s also showed me that I need to be a better traveler. I’m always looking for ways to be a more responsible traveler, so loved all o your tips… and also really appreciate you calling out animal tourism.

Thank you, Shelley! I really appreciate your comment. Becoming a better traveler is a never ending process but it is always great to learn new things and to realize how much you change to the better with time:)

I love this. I’m actually traveling locally this weekend. Sure it’s sad I can’t go further but I’m super excited to see some of my own backyard this year

I know the feeling! I always want to go as far as possible;) But while that isn’t an option there is no reason not to be a local explorer. It actually feels just as good while you’re traveling locally:) I hope you enjoy your weekend!

We’ll all be looking for local travel destinations for the next little while :). I love jumping on a train and heading to a place I’ve never been before. We do these things overseas all the time. Why not do them at home? Thanks for the inspiration

Exactly! It’s weird we are more adventurous abroad than at home right? I hope you get to discover many beautiful local train journeys and new destinations! 🙂

I love this! I’ve been advocating for local tourism too, now more than ever. We tend to be so focus on ‘exotic’ destinations that we often neglect to see the wonders of our own backyard. Great tips to start noticing it ?

Thank you, Coni! The thing is that if we go to new local places they can be quite exotic too 🙂

This is a great read about travelling locally, something I really should do more of!

Thank you! I really hope you take the advantage of it when you can:)

I’m a big advocate of local travel. I call them outdoor pocket adventures. I just did 25 hikes within 10 miles of home during the lockdown. Found some great places. Thanks for promoting local travel.

I love “outdoor pocket adventures”! Oh wow! You were lucky to be able to hike under lockdown, I would probably have done the same if I could have. We were confined to our house for nearly 3 months. It’s just been 2-3 weeks since we could actually go out! So now it’s full on exploring again:)

I love camping and I can’t wait to discover more of my own country, Romania. There are so many beautiful places that I need to visit! Thanks for all your recommendations. They will be really useful

Thank you! I’m sure you’ll have a great time exploring Romania! I was meant to go there in April but the tickets obviously got cancelled. I hope to get there one day and maybe you’ll have some great tips for me then:)

These are great tips, we love to travel locally and eco-friendly too! 🙂

Thank you! Happy to connect with other conscious travelers:)

I love the idea of getting to know your own backyard and supporting local businesses. Frankly, we have all got so spoilt over the past few years that we do not see the beauty that is around us (when I say ‘we’ I very much include myself too). I love your take on traveling locally and will be incorporating your tips and tricks!

Thank you, Caroline! I really hope you get to explore a lot of local beauty this summer:)

Even before the pandemic I loved local travel because it is sustainable and often overlooked. Now with the pandemic I can see that being the norm for a while. You’ve written a lot of great tips, especially the tips to make sure you are still a responsible traveler. Great post and thanks for sharing!

Thanks for sharing these lovely tips Linn. Fabulous post!

Thank you, Hussain!

Comments are closed.

Nature can make you feel small. You should seek that feeling when traveling.

Get more news like this delivered to your inbox by signing up for our Travel newsletter here . 

I hadn’t hiked enough to know whether I liked it or not. In theory, it seemed like something I would enjoy. The reality was being overheated by two layers of jackets but with freezing hands and cold water running down my nose. 

I don’t like hiking. I can confidently say that now.

On a recent expedition to the Arctic Circle with Aurora Expeditions , we were able to bear witness to nature’s grandiosity. The aforementioned hike was to Eldborg Crater in Iceland's Snaefellsnes National Park. 

After roughly 4 muddy, rocky miles, I climbed the mountain to see … nothing. It was a crater, and like all beautiful things, it was ephemeral. 

Learn more: Best travel insurance

Expeditions aren't typical vacations: 'What a privilege it is to see these places'

I was out of breath, cold and sweaty simultaneously, annoyed at the thought of having to make the same trek back, and grateful that I felt dwarfed by everything around me. 

Nature can make you feel small.

Oftentimes, the idea of going somewhere new or familiar is set with the expectation of relaxing or enjoying yourself. It is not often that we seek out the feeling of insignificance. But it’s a rewarding experience when you meet it face to face. 

Embarking on an expedition cruise can offer travelers a unique adventure that combines exploration with the stark beauty of one of the world's last great wildernesses. The journey provides an intimate encounter with the region's unique wildlife while onboard experts deliver lectures about the fragile ecosystem and the need for preservation, offering a transformative journey that stays with travelers long after they return home.

The beauty of travel

As an avid ocean cruiser, I expected an expedition to hit similar benchmarks of relaxation. As soon as I stepped on board, I was dissuaded from that notion. This was an Expedition with a capital E. The small group of people on board were in this together so we were all gathered for the safety and instructional briefings — something that I usually do at my leisure in my cabin during ocean cruising. 

We also all wake up together, thanks to the intercom morning announcements, which there are several during the day. Because it is an expedition, itineraries are more of a wish list than a concrete plan, so passengers are given updates on the planned activities every morning and throughout the day. 

It can be daunting or reaffirming as a solo traveler to be on a rigid schedule with up to 132 other people. You will share meals and experiences with your fellow passengers, it is inevitable to feel a sense of camaraderie by the end of your first of 12 days. After all, you hiked almost 4 miles in the rain together, helped each other from slipping in the mud, held on to each other during bumpy Zodiac rides, and gasped in synchronicity as you spotted whales a few feet from you.

Still, at the end of the hike, or the Zodiac ride, or whatever that day’s activity was, you have a moment to look up and see how small you truly are. The cliffs, the rocks, the water, the wind, the rain, the sun, it’s all there as a reminder of their perennial beauty. 

And you can’t help but wonder: Why did it take almost 4,000 miles from my home to realize that?

That’s the beauty of travel. The more places you visit, the more comparisons and similarities you find to your home to realize that we are so small in this world but wield immense power to shape it.

A work deadline seems small compared to the hundreds of years it takes for moss to grow on volcanic rocks. The email you haven’t responded to yet pales in comparison to the constant reminder to cover your face to protect it from the wind. And the queasy feeling of performance reviews is nothing to the constant need to check where you’re stepping so you don’t fall off a cliff.

Traveling and nature can do that for us. They can make us feel small and liberate us from the stress we impose on ourselves. It’s one of those reminders that never register when you hear; you have to do the work of leaving your home to truly grasp it. Expeditions combine the two.

No matter how hectic your schedule is on a given week, the moss will still take almost ten years to convert to soil. And that’s OK. 

Eventually, trips and expeditions end. Photos are a memento, but what stays with us are the feelings we experienced on days when we were away from home. 

The reporter on this story received access to this event from Aurora Expeditions. USA TODAY maintains editorial control of content.  

After traveling to over 40 countries, I have no plans to return to these 4 places around the globe

• After traveling to over 40 countries, there are a few places that I'm not in a rush to return to .
• Although I loved traveling to Venice, I'd rather explore different places in Italy next time.
• I also thought Phuket was gorgeous, but would prefer other options for a beach vacation  in Thailand.

When traveling, I always try to approach each destination with an open mind and a desire to experience the culture, meet the locals, see the guidebook recommendations , and get off the beaten path whenever possible.

More and more people are choosing to travel in 2024 — a record number of about 15.9 million Americans have already traveled internationally in the first quarter of the year — and I'm on the same page.

I've been lucky enough to visit more than 40 countries and have traveled to six of the seven continents. Although I'd love to revisit some of my favorite places that have made an indelible impact on me, not all destinations have left me with the same desire to return.

Of the places I've visited so far, these are the ones I probably won't return to.

I loved Los Angeles, but one visit was enough.

Growing up in Australia, I dreamed of visiting Hollywood — the place where so many movies are made. When I was 14, my mom said she was taking me to Los Angeles , and I thought I was the luckiest kid on the planet.

Beforehand, we spent a few weeks road-tripping around Mexico, checking out the Mayan ruins, eating local cuisine, and going to dance parties on the beach. When we arrived in Los Angeles, it didn't have the same allure as Mexico did for me.

We had a wonderful time exploring the movie studios, walking along the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and driving by celebrity homes. But once I'd seen LA, I didn't feel the need to go back.

I actually did end up returning with my husband when we were in our 20s, as he was keen to tick off those experiences, too. But he felt the same way I did — there are other places we'd rather revisit.

Monaco was glitzy and glamorous, but it just wasn’t my kind of place.

When we were in southern France, we decided to take a day trip to Monte Carlo, Monaco. My husband was desperate to see the Monaco Grand Prix , so I spent the day exploring the city with his mom while he and his dad checked out the Formula 1 race.

Walking around Monte Carlo, we were blown away by the opulence, which isn't surprising, considering it's ranked one of the top cities in the world on a wealth-per-capita basis . I don't think I've ever seen so many luxurious yachts or flashy cars.

The gardens were perfectly manicured and the streets were spotlessly clean. However, it just wasn't my kind of destination.

We were constantly surrounded by wealth but I prefer visiting places where I can interact with people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

I’m glad I’ve seen Venice, but it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

Venice is one of those places that has to be seen to be believed. Built on a group of islands in a lagoon in the Adriatic Sea, there really is nowhere else like it in the world. The absence of cars gives it a particular charm, and it almost feels like the buildings are floating on water.

I traveled to Venice on a European vacation with my now husband when I was 23 years old. We splurged on a gondola ride through the canals and marveled at the Renaissance and Gothic architecture. In Piazza San Marco, we bought an overpriced ice cream and checked out St Mark's Basilica.

Venice is definitely worth putting on your bucket list, especially considering it's predicted to sink as soon as 2100 . However, it's probably not the kind of place I'd visit multiple times because I found it to be crowded and expensive.

If I go back to Italy, there are other places I'd like to see, such as Lake Como.

Phuket is beautiful, but I'd rather explore other areas of Thailand.

Phuket is home to some of Thailand's most popular beaches, seaside resorts, restaurants, and bars, making it somewhat of a tourist hot spot.

When I was 17, my parents took me there for a weeklong vacation, and we stayed in a resort in Patong. Although it was fun swimming in the resort pool and parasailing around the bay, I didn't leave wanting to return.

On return trips to Thailand , I've found other places I've enjoyed more. For example, I loved Krabi, a province in southern Thailand known for its limestone cliffs and sandy beaches. It was less crowded than Phuket and, in my opinion, much prettier.

• Main content

   Quick Links

Who uses travelmath.

Companies like United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and Ryanair use Travelmath to re-route passengers and plan new flight paths.

Celebrities love Travelmath!

"Travelmath is the one app I couldn't live without - it calculates all your journey timings and because I travel a lot, it's essential. Whoever invented Travelmath, I love you! " – Drew Barrymore

"There's a website called Travelmath, it's really good if you're into flight times. "  – Blake Griffin

Dirtiest Public Transit

See the research from our Travelmath study on public transportation hygiene. How does the New York subway rank against Chicago, DC, SF, and Boston?   Read the full study!

Germiest Hotel Rooms

See even more research from our Travelmath study on hotel hygiene. Spoiler alert: Don't turn on the TV...   Read the full study!

   Travel Tools

What is travelmath.

Travelmath is an online trip calculator that helps you find answers quickly. If you're planning a trip, you can measure things like travel distance and travel time . To keep your budget under control, use the travel cost tools.

You can also browse information on flights including the distance and flight time. Or use the section on driving to compare the distance by car, or the length of your road trip.

Type in any location to search for your exact destination .

Quick Calculator

How do i search.

To get started, enter your starting point and destination into the boxes above. If you want an airport , it's best to enter the 3-letter IATA code if you know it. For cities , include the state or country if possible.

You can also enter more general locations like a state or province , country, island , zip code, or even some landmarks by name.

Check Prices

Home  ·  About  ·  Terms  ·  Privacy

Money blog: M&S loses 'grocer of year' crown - as Sainsbury's claims title for first time in 20 years

Welcome to the Money blog, your place for personal finance and consumer news and tips. Leave a comment on any of the stories we're covering below.

Wednesday 3 July 2024 14:29, UK

• Marks & Spencer knocked off top spot as new grocer of year named
• RAC says people who fail driving test should be charged more for re-test
• Young people offered half price Amazon Prime membership
• Supermarkets reveal refund policies if deliveries come late

Essential reads

• Cheap Eats : Two Michelin-starred chef reveals his favourites in Birmingham
• Women in Business : 'We don't get invited to golf' - The women who coordinated pregnancies to start virtual cancer care business and raised £5m
• Basically... What is income tax?
• Money Problem : 'I hired a car via EasyJet but they are directing my complaint to someone else - what can I do?'
• Best of the Money blog - an archive

Ask a question or make a comment

Marks & Spencer is offering 20% off its new school uniforms to help parents get ready for the new school year.

The average cost of school uniform in England has dropped by 4% in 2024, according to a survey by The Schoolwear Association.

However, the average cost of compulsory secondary school uniform and sportswear items for a child starting secondary school in England is still £92.35 per pupil.

That can be a big expenditure, especially for families with multiple children.

M&S's discount excludes footwear, hosiery, underwear, outerwear, accessories, school bags and lunch boxes.

Asian-inspired eatery Itsu is looking at plans to double the number of its stores in the UK.

The chain is considering opening 80 new restaurants and has appointed Savills to advise on its expansion plans.

Itsu is looking to strengthen its foothold in London, where the majority of its restaurants are based, as well as growing its presence in new locations with flagship stores in big cities.

Liverpool, Birmingham, Cardiff, Sheffield, Newcastle, Glasgow, and Belfast are among the UK cities currently without an Itsu store.

Kate Thompson, property director at Itsu, said: "At Itsu, we are focused on making the joy of delicious, health[ier], Asian-inspired food available to everyone across the UK and beyond.

"We look forward to working with Savills to help us deliver on our plan for growth."

A motoring research charity says a case should be made for raising driving test fees for learners who repeatedly fail.

The RAC Foundation said this would encourage prospective drivers to wait until they are ready to pass, easing the "unacceptable" backlog of tests in the UK.

Last month, AA Driving School said it obtained Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) figures suggesting the average waiting time for a test at the start of February was more than 18 weeks.

A ban on driving tests during COVID  lockdowns plus a driving examiner strike has led to a bottleneck of demand.

Before 2020, the average wait time was six weeks, from booking online to turning up at the test centre.

One way of addressing the issue, according to RAC Foundation director Steve Gooding, is to consider additional fees for those with several previous failures and even to offer a rebate to first-time passers.

"Forget about all the traffic jams out on the road, there is now an unacceptable amount of congestion in the test system with learners often waiting many months for a slot," he said.

"In part these jams are being caused by people who have failed multiple times and come back to take a test that might be their fourth, fifth or sixth attempt, or even greater."

Government figures show 93,204 practical car driving tests taken in the year to the end of March were at least the candidate's sixth attempt at passing.

Under the current pricing plan, practical driving tests cost £62 during weekday daytimes and £75 during evenings, weekends, and bank holidays.

Marks & Spencer's title as Britain's grocer of the year was taken away yesterday as Sainsbury's took the crown for the first time in nearly two decades.

At a lavish ceremony held at the Royal Albert Hall, Sainsbury's took home the top prize in the Grocer Gold Awards ahead of M&S, Tesco, Lidl, Aldi and social enterprise The Company Shop.

The supermarket was praised for being the only "big four" supermarket (Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons) to have gained shopper spend from both Aldi and Lidl amid the cost of living crisis.

"Restoring growth while increasing profits is not an easy thing to do at the best of times, but especially with the highest inflation in decades, and the discounters - and other rivals - also opening a significant number of new stores," said Adam Leyland, chair of the judging panel.

"But Sainsbury's has given shoppers permission to enjoy its wide range of food and drink through much more competitive pricing, most notably the launch of Nectar Prices last April, and its impressively rapid rollout."

Other awards handed out on the night included Britain's favourite supermarket, which was won by Tesco for the 10th year in a row.

Tesco also took home the award for employer of the year for its "pioneering" work in supporting diversity and inclusion as well as its support to young people, competitive pay, and step up in maternity and paternity benefits.

The award for customer service was won by Waitrose, while the Grocer Cup went to Greggs CEO Roisin Currie, recognising the success Greggs has had going from a high-street bakery chain into the UK's biggest fast food chain.

Santander has become the latest lender to announce cuts across a range of its mortgage products. 

The high street bank has said selected residential fixed rates will be reduced by up to 0.16% on election day.

The move, which comes after three other banks cut rates this week, could "ramp up the battle" between the UK's biggest lenders. 

Halifax and NatWest slashed rates by up to 0.23%, and Clydesdale Bank by 0.38%, earlier this week. 

"This is Santander reacting to its competitors and joining the rate reduction party," the managing director of Yellow Brick Mortgages, Stephen Perkins, told Newspage. 

"This move from Santander has the potential to ramp up the rate battle between the UK's biggest lenders." 

He said more cuts were likely, ahead of the expected base rate reduction in August. 

"Things are really hotting up now in the mortgage market," he added.

Simon Bridgland, director of Release Freedom, was less impressed by the move, saying it they are "abysmal rate reductions". 

"Any poor soul wanting a remortgage or existing Santander borrowers in need of a new deal will just have to stay on the higher existing rates," he said. 

"Residential lenders need to jump to it and drop rates further." 

By Sarah Taaffe-Maguire , business reporter

The index that tracks the share price performance of the 500 largest companies listed on US stock exchanges reached a new high last night. 

The rise followed comments on lowering inflation from the head of the US central bank, known as the Fed, which sparked market optimism. 

Some of the world's biggest companies make up the index, Microsoft and Amazon being two prime examples. 

Tesla's comeback in the form of a more than 10% share price rise will also have helped the new S&P 500 record. 

Its shares were at a five-month high after the electric car maker beat Wall Street expectations as price cuts helped stimulate demand.

Here in the UK, both the FTSE100 and 250 indexes are up 0.49% and 0.47% respectively. 

The biggest faller on the FTSE 100 list of most valuable companies was JD Sports which has had a run of losses for more than a week. Today its share price was down 3.61%. 

Bad news for motorists continues as the oil price tipped higher again today, reaching $86.64.

Anyone going on holidays to a country using the euro or importing goods from the continent can get €1.1797 for their pound. 

Sterling has crept up against the dollar this month with a pound buying $1.2691. 

Oreo has released a new limited edition vanilla latte flavour.

The product is already available in select supermarkets and combines a double cream vanilla filling with a vanilla latte one.

Each pack comes with 16 biscuits included and has a recommended retail price of £1.39. 

Becky Latcham, brand manager for Oreo, said: "We're absolutely thrilled to introduce Oreo's latest innovation.

"We know Oreo fans love to be playful with the way they eat their cookies so we couldn't resist putting our own spin on the original cookie that people know and love."

People aged 18 to 22 are being offered a half-price Amazon Prime membership in a bid to make the subscription "more accessible to young people".

It means anyone in this age bracket can get things like free next day delivery and Prime Video for £4.49 a month (£47.49 per year) instead of the usual £8.99.

"We're always looking for ways to provide more value to our customers and offering 18 to 22-year-olds 50% off Prime membership helps to make the wide range of Prime benefits even more accessible to young people," said John Boumphrey, UK country manager at Amazon. 

He said at an "important time" in their lives, helping young people save will "make a big difference" whether they are heading to university, starting work or moving away from home.

The half-price offer has been open to students since 2014, but this is the first time the company has offered it to all 18 to 22-year-olds.

Every Wednesday we ask Michelin chefs to pick their favourite Cheap Eats where they live and when they cook at home. This week we speak to Aktar Islam, chef patron of Opheem - the first Birmingham restaurant to be awarded two Michelin stars. 

His entry coincides with him being crowned UK chef of the year at The Cateys last night - congratulations, Aktar!

Hi Aktar , c an you tell us your favourite places in Birmingham  where you can get a meal for two for less than £40?

I'm a big fan of Tiger Bites Pig . Grab a counter seat and watch them smash out some of the best Taiwanese bao buns in the UK. My favourite is the chicken - it's seasoned with Sichuan chilli oil and topped with chicken crackle. I could eat one every day.

Bonehead is the best fried chicken spot in Birmingham. Their Bonehead and Hothead seasonings are corkers. I usually get the burgers or the strips with a side of Nashville fries. If I'm feeling brave I'll get a pickleback too, but they are punchy!

Qavali is an Indo-Persian restaurant which takes its inspiration from the Indian subcontinent and uses spices and techniques rooted everywhere from Turkey to India. Marinated meat is grilled over charcoal, and often served in richly spiced sauces and broths. I'm a meat eater, so nothing makes me happier than a big plate of grilled meat and this is my go-to.

What's your go-to cheap meal at home?

I tend to cook with a lot of pulses when I'm at home. I usually opt for a roast vegetable and lentil dish. I just grab a tin from the cupboard and use any vegetables that I have knocking around. I add garlic, cumin, and chilli. It's so simple and flavourful. Serve with a roast chicken - perfect.

We've spoken to lots of top chefs and bloggers - check out their cheap eats from around the country here...

If you regularly order your supermarket shopping online, chances are you'll have had a delivery turn up late at least once.

The bad news is that if you didn't try to claim back any extra you paid for a specific delivery slot, you may have missed out.

The good news is you now know for future.

Consumer group Which says: "If you paid extra for special delivery and your order arrived later than agreed, you can claim back the extra delivery cost as the service wasn't delivered."

We asked Scott Dixon, from The Complaints Resolver , to go into a bit more detail - and he flagged S49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which states:

"Every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill."

Scott says: "Late delivery would be considered as a breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as you paid for a time-specific delivery as part of the contract you entered into.

"You could request a refund of the delivery charge as the time-specific part of the contract constitutes a breach and has not been fulfilled.

"I would contact customer services and be nice about it, as you are more likely to elicit a better outcome that way given the value involved."

The inspiration for this post was one of the Money team seeing their shopping arrive 45 minutes late last weekend.

They rang Tesco's customer service team who, full marks, took down the details and refunded the £7 delivery charge without much fuss.

Tesco's media team later told us they judge things case by case - but they do encourage you to contact their customer relations teams if there's any delay.

We asked the other supermarkets for their policies.

Asda said...

"Asda always aims to deliver goods within the delivery slot agreed with the customer. However, if an order is delivered outside of this slot, we will let the customer know and they are then able to request a refund for the delivery charge."

"We offer customers a one-hour delivery slot of their choice. If we're running late, we'll always contact the customer directly to let them know. On the rare occasion that we're really late, our customer hub advisors can issue refunds - these are assessed on a case-by-case basis."

Morrisons...

"We work with customers on a case-by-case basis to resolve any late delivery issues."

Waitrose...

"In the event of a delay, the shop makes every effort to contact each customer directly in advance of their delivery to explain the situation and provide an updated ETA. If the customer is no longer able to accept the delivery, we work with them to reschedule it at a time that suits. While delays are often beyond our control, we assess each situation on a case-by-case basis, and Partners can offer a gesture of goodwill when customers are inconvenienced."

Regardless of their policies, it's worth (politely) pushing - as the law is on your side.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

Reactions and Highlights of the Supreme Court Decision on Trump’s Immunity

The ruling makes a distinction between official actions of a president, which have immunity, and those of a private citizen. In dissent, the court’s liberals lament a vast expansion of presidential power.

• Share full article

Charlie Savage

Here are some key excerpts from the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court declared on Monday that former presidents have immunity for their official actions, upending the case against Donald J. Trump over his attempts to subvert his 2020 election loss.

OPINION OF THE COURT

We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.

In the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the conservative supermajority explained that Congress has no authority to pass criminal laws regulating powers that the Constitution assigns exclusively to presidents. Where the two branches share overlapping authority, presidents may or may not have immunity depending on whether applying criminal law to those specific facts would dangerously intrude on the functions of the executive branch.

Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by her liberal colleagues, wrote a vehement dissent , portraying the ruling as a sharp expansion of presidential power — not just for Mr. Trump but for all presidents. She cited the famous World War II ruling that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans in the West to invoke the fear that presidents may feel freer to abuse their power.

Justice Sotomayor dissent

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding. This new official-acts immunity now ‘lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any president that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the nation.

At earlier stages of the Trump case, lower court judges had ruled that Mr. Trump had no immunity from prosecution over the allegations in the indictment regardless of whether the acts were official or unofficial. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Federal District Court judge who would oversee any trial, Tanya S. Chutkan, to conduct that analysis. The majority, however, declared that Mr. Trump is clearly immune from prosecution for his alleged interactions with Justice Department officials in trying to enlist their help in overturning the 2020 election.

Certain allegations — such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General — are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations — such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public — present more difficult questions. Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.

Even as Chief Justice Roberts wrote that a president talking to a vice president counted as an official act, he suggested that it might not qualify for immunity in the context of Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on his vice president at the time, Mike Pence, to disrupt the certification of Electoral College votes. He noted that Congress has legislated extensively to define the vice president’s role in that task and that the president plays no direct part in it, suggesting that allowing a prosecution based on that act would not unduly impair executive branch functions. By contrast, the chief justice suggested that another context — a president talking to a vice president about casting a tiebreaking 51st vote in the Senate on legislation that is part of the White House’s agenda, for example — more likely would be immune. But he still left that issue to Judge Chutkan to consider.

Opinion of the court

It is ultimately the government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the district court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the vice president’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as president of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.

During oral arguments, a Justice Department lawyer had suggested that even if the court were to rule that presidents are immune for official acts, prosecutors should still be able to introduce evidence about Mr. Trump’s official acts to help the jury understand the unofficial ones that would be the basis of charges. If so, a ruling that presidents have immunity for official actions would not have been particularly disruptive to the case prosecutors want to present to the jury. But in a major victory for Mr. Trump, Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion ruled out letting prosecutors use testimony or records about any official acts that are subject to immunity.

If official conduct for which the president is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the ‘intended effect’ of immunity would be defeated.

One of the court’s six conservatives, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, split from her colleagues on that issue. In a concurring opinion, she said she agreed with the three liberal judges in dissent that prosecutors should be allowed to use such evidence under certain circumstances. As an example, she pointed to a hypothetical bribery case, saying it would “hamstring the prosecution” not to be able to tell the jury about an official act that an ex-president had taken a bribe to perform.

Justice Barrett concurring in part

Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo , the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo , even if the quo , standing alone, could not be a basis for the President's criminal liability.

In a footnote, Chief Justice Roberts addressed Justice Barrett, saying “of course” prosecutors could tell the jury that a president had taken an official act in a bribery case; they just could not present documents and testimony inviting the jury to scrutinize a president’s motivation and the legitimacy of that official action.

The five-justice majority’s declaration that official actions that are subject to presidential immunity cannot be used as evidence could matter for evidence about the inflammatory speech Mr. Trump delivered to his followers ahead of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol or any of his postings on Twitter leading up to the 2021 riot. It is established that speech that is protected by the First Amendment can be used as evidence about a defendant’s related crimes. But while leaving the first crack to Judge Chutkan, Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion raised the possibility that Mr. Trump’s words may count as official actions; and so would apparently be inadmissible at trial.

He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government — for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity — perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 . But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 868. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging.

Simon J. Levien

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on X that the court has been “consumed by a corruption crisis.” She pledged to file articles of impeachment against the justices, though she did not specify which. The last time a Supreme Court justice was successfully impeached was in 1804, and it would require that she and her fellow Democrats win significant support from Republicans, who control the House, to even bring any impeachment to a vote.

Richard Fausset

The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling will also reverberate in Fulton County, Ga., where Trump and 14 of his allies have been criminally charged in a sprawling racketeering indictment. In January, Trump’s Georgia lawyers filed a motion arguing that the case should be dismissed on immunity grounds. But prosecutors have been waiting on the Supreme Court, and have said they will file a response to Trump within two weeks of the issuance of the immunity ruling.

The Georgia case has also been stalled by a pretrial appeal over the issue of whether the Fulton County district attorney, Fani T. Willis, should step down from the case because of her romantic involvement with a lawyer she hired to manage the prosecution. The state appellate court is not expected to rule on the matter until after the November presidential election.

Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immunity

The court rules that former presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, and are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for official acts.

Advertisement

Maggie Astor

Republicans responded to the ruling with triumph, and Democrats with dismay.

In reactions mirroring the ideological split of the Supreme Court justices in their ruling granting presidents immunity for official actions, Republicans expressed triumph on Monday and Democrats dismay.

Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio was the first of former President Donald J. Trump’s top running-mate contenders to weigh in, calling the decision “a massive win, not just for Trump but the rule of law.”

Other Republicans also praised the ruling as a rejection of what they characterized as Democrats’ using the government against Mr. Trump for political purposes.

Senator Steve Daines of Montana, who leads Republicans’ Senate campaign arm, said the Supreme Court had ended a “sad chapter of Joe Biden’s weaponization of the Justice Department.” Stephen Miller, a top Trump adviser, called the decision “another setback for the Democrat Party’s illegal and unconstitutional crusade to outlaw dissent, jail the opposition leader, impose authoritarian rule, replace democracy with the deep state and liberty with leftwing oligarchy.”

The Justice Department operates independently of the president, and there is no evidence that President Biden has had any involvement in its prosecution decisions.

Mr. Trump wants to eliminate the department’s independence and has called for prosecuting his political opponents, purging federal agencies of civil servants who might oppose his policies and greatly expanding executive power.

Democrats expressed fear for the future of American democracy, as Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson did in their dissenting opinion . “Simply frightening. May God have mercy on this nation,” Jaime Harrison, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, wrote alongside Justice Sotomayor’s quote: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

Mr. Biden’s deputy campaign manager, Quentin Fulks, said on a call with reporters that the Supreme Court had “handed Donald Trump the keys to a dictatorship.” Shortly before that, the Biden campaign put out a statement saying that the ruling did not change the facts of Mr. Trump’s actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, 2021: “Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election,” it said.

“Our democracy has been gravely wounded,” Eric H. Holder Jr., who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, wrote in a post on social media , saying the Supreme Court had given presidents free rein to commit crimes. “There is no basis in the Constitution for this Court constructed monstrosity.”

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said the Supreme Court had been “consumed by a corruption crisis” and pledged to file articles of impeachment, though she did not specify against which justices. Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas have been under scrutiny because a flag associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement flew outside Justice Alito’s house after the 2020 election, and Justice Thomas’s wife was involved with efforts to overturn the election.

Supreme Court justices can be impeached, but only one has been — more than 200 years ago — and Republicans currently control the House.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, called Monday “a sad day for America” and added , “Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president.”

The district court judge overseeing Mr. Trump’s trial in Washington will have to determine whether his specific actions are protected under the ruling. That will take time and very likely delay a trial past the election — at which point, if Mr. Trump wins, he could order the Justice Department to end the case.

“I don’t see how this case could go forward before the election,” Alina Habba, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, said on Fox News.

Outside groups focused on democracy also condemned the ruling.

“The Court has issued an instruction manual for lawbreaking presidents,” said Michael Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “Make sure you conspire only with other government employees. You’ll never be held to account.”

Michael Gold , Simon J. Levien and Mattathias Schwartz contributed reporting.

Michael Gold

The Trump campaign has already sent two fund-raising emails off the Supreme Court decision, a now standard response to developments in Trump’s legal entanglements. “Official acts cannot be illegally prosecuted - BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRACY & OUR CONSTITUTION!,” one said.

Maggie Haberman

Trump has moved on to what was an inevitable statement from him: saying on Truth Social that the Supreme Court decision “should end” all the other court cases against him, which he has falsely tied to President Biden and paints with the same brush. He includes his criminal conviction in New York and the separate successful prosecution of his company for a decadelong fraud by the state's attorney general, Letitia James.

Anticipation and family members of some justices filled the court for the momentous decision.

The tension and sense of anticipation was palpable inside the Supreme Court on Monday morning, as the justices delivered the remaining opinions and some of the most eagerly awaited decisions of the term.

“Sorry this is not the case you’re waiting to hear so I’ll try to be concise,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett quipped, before delivering the court’s first majority opinion of the day, in a case about suing over regulations .

It was indeed not the case that most observers inside and outside the court were counting down to: on the scope and limits of presidential immunity .

In the audience was Michael Dreeben, a former deputy solicitor general who argued for the government in that case. Mr. Dreeben was greeted by several people before proceedings began, and as the justices spoke on the immunity case, he took notes on a small pad and occasionally twiddled his pen. But he showed little emotion as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered the majority opinion, effectively ruling against him in deciding that presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution.

The parents of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the wife of Chief Justice Roberts, Jane Roberts, were also in attendance. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was absent.

Chief Justice Roberts preemptively addressed possible criticism of the ruling as he emphasized that the decision “does not protect any particular president, but the presidency,” and added that presidential immunity did have limits.

“Saying it so doesn’t make it so,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor sharply countered at the beginning of her dissent from the bench , a rare moment that underscored her profound disagreement with the majority.

Justice Sotomayor, who dissented on behalf of the other liberal members of the court, cut a note of exasperation through her lengthy speech, seemingly to sporadically add “imagine that,” “think about that,” and “interesting, history matters right?” as she read from her written words. When discussing and rebutting the majority, she looked several times to her colleagues on her immediate left, Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts. They did not return her gaze.

“We fear for democracy,” she said in conclusion.

The court then turned to lighter matters, as the chief justice concluded the term and recognized retiring workers for their service.

“On behalf of my employees — colleagues” — he said, misspeaking to laughter. “On behalf of my colleagues, I thank the employees.”

At the sound of the buzzer and prompted by a staff member, the audience then rose as the justices filed out, concluding the last day of official business until the new term in the fall.

An earlier version of this article misstated the relatives of Supreme Court justices who attended Monday’s session. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s family was not there.

How we handle corrections

In a call with reporters, the Biden campaign is using the decision to sound an alarm. “They just handed Donald Trump the keys to a dictatorship,” Quentin Fulks, the deputy campaign manager, said. “We have to do everything in our power to stop him.”

Senator John Barasso, who ranks third in the Senate Republican leadership, put out a statement heralding the Supreme Court decision as ending “weaponization” of the justice system.

Outside the court, there was little sense that the justices had issued a momentous decision on presidential power. TV cameras and reporters outnumbered the few protesters. A small contingent was calling to abolish the death penalty. One woman with anti-Trump flags was blasting jaunty music with the lyrics “shame on you.” And one Trump supporter wore a sign blaming Democrats for ruining his life.

A vehement dissent laments a vast expansion of power that makes the president ‘a king above the law.’

The Supreme Court’s three Democratic appointees railed in dissent against the conservative majority’s ruling that former President Donald J. Trump has some immunity for his official actions, declaring that their colleagues had made the president into “a king above the law.”

Writing that the majority was “deeply wrong,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor added that beyond its consequences for the bid to prosecute Mr. Trump for his attempt to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election, it would have “stark” long-term consequences for the future of American democracy.

“The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,” she wrote, in an opinion joined by the other two Democratic appointees, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Insulating the president of the United States — the most powerful person in the country and possibly the world, she noted — from criminal prosecution when he uses his official powers will allow him to freely use his official power to violate the law, exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, or other “evil ends.”

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” she wrote, adding: “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably.”

Justice Sotomayor also wrote that how the majority had applied the new standard of immunity to official acts to Mr. Trump’s case specifically was “perhaps even more troubling.” Its analysis, she added, operated as a “one-way ratchet” — helping the defense but offering no help to the prosecution.

For example, she wrote, the majority declared that all of Mr. Trump’s actions involving Vice President Mike Pence and the Justice Department counted as official conduct but did not designate any actions in the indictment as falling into the non-“core” category of official conduct that it said could be prosecuted. Nor did it designate as clearly private actions any of several things that Mr. Trump’s team had conceded looked unofficial, like Mr. Trump’s interactions with a personal lawyer.

Justice Sotomayor railed in particular that the majority had declined to rule out immunity for Mr. Trump’s role in organizing fake slates of electors, pressuring states to subvert the legitimate election results, and exploiting the violence of the Jan. 6 riot to influence the certification proceedings.

“It is not conceivable that a prosecution for these alleged efforts to overturn a presidential election, whether labeled official or unofficial under the majority’s test,” would pose any danger of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch, she wrote, adding that “the majority could have said as much,” but did not.

Sometimes justices conclude their dissents with a softening and polite qualifier, writing “Respectfully, I dissent.” Justice Sotomayor instead concluded this one harshly: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

An earlier version of this article incorrectly omitted words from Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. She wrote, “Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” not “Organizes a military exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

While joining her five fellow Republican appointees in declaring that former presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for their official actions, Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion that nevertheless reflected some flavor of dissent.

She disagreed with the majority’s holding that the Constitution does not permit prosecutors to tell a jury about an ex-president’s official actions that are relevant to some private action being charged. As an example, she pointed to a hypothetical bribery case, saying it would “hamstring the prosecution” not to be able to tell the jury what official act an ex-president took a bribe to perform.

In a footnote of the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts addressed Justice Barrett’s example of a bribery case. He disagreed that the court’s ruling meant prosecutors could not mention any official act, saying “of course” prosecutors could point to the public record to show that a president performed the official act in question. What prosecutors may not do, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is admit testimony or private records that would invite a jury to scrutinize the president’s motivations for the act and second-guess its propriety.

In an interview with Fox News’s digital team, Trump heralded the decision as an absolute victory, although it falls somewhat short of that. He blamed Democrats for the prosecutions and said, “And now the courts have spoken.” He said he can now campaign freely. It’s worth bearing in mind that Trump is set to be sentenced in Manhattan next week on his criminal conviction for falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a porn star in 2016.

Adam Liptak

Reporting on the Supreme Court since 2008

Thomas and Alito took part in the case, despite calls for their recusal.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejecting calls for their disqualification, participated in the decision on the scope of former President Donald J. Trump’s immunity from prosecution.

Experts in legal ethics have said that the activities of the justices’ wives raised serious questions about their impartiality.

Virginia Thomas, known as Ginni, helped shape the effort to overturn the 2020 election. “Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History,” Ms. Thomas wrote in a text message to Mark Meadows, President Donald J. Trump’s chief of staff, during the fraught weeks between the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Justice Thomas has not given a public explanation for remaining on the case, and he has taken part in other cases arising from the election and the 2021 attack. But he recused himself in October from a case concerning John Eastman, a conservative lawyer who had advised Mr. Trump. Justice Thomas, for whom Mr. Eastman had served as a law clerk, gave no reasons for his decision to disqualify himself from that case.

Justice Alito has been more forthcoming. He explained why he would not recuse from the case in a letter to Democratic lawmakers in May after The New York Times reported that flags that have been used to support the “Stop the Steal” movement had been displayed at his homes in Virginia and New Jersey .

The justice said his wife, Martha-Ann, was responsible. “My wife is fond of flying flags,” he wrote. “I am not. She was solely responsible for having flagpoles put up at our residence and our vacation home and has flown a wide variety of flags over the years.”

The court recently adopted a code of conduct for the justices . It allows individual justices to make their own decisions about recusal.

One provision of the code says that “a justice is presumed impartial and has an obligation to sit unless disqualified.”

A second provision says that “a justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.”

The flags displayed at his properties, Justice Alito wrote, did not require him to recuse from the case. “A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases,” he wrote, “would conclude this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal.”

Indeed, he wrote, he had an obligation to sit and hear the case.

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name used by Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. She is known as Ginni, not Ginny.

There’s so far been no reaction on social media to the ruling from the three people in closest contention to be Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate: J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio and Doug Burgum.

Mattathias Schwartz

The ruling is “absurd and dangerous,” a “monstrosity,” Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, wrote in a post on X. He argued that the Supreme Court is giving presidents free rein to commit crimes so long as they act within their “constitutional authority.”

Here’s one of the sleeper holdings in the court’s ruling: The decision finds not only that a president can’t be charged for any official acts, but also that evidence involving official acts can’t be introduced to bolster accusations made about unofficial acts. If I’m reading this right, Chief Justice Roberts has reversed himself from his position during oral arguments.

The Government does not dispute that if Trump is entitled to immunity for certain official acts, he may not “be held criminally liable” based on those acts. But it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts “for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.”

Then, he posed a hypothetical situation about a president giving away an ambassadorship for a bribe. Roberts said that prosecutors should be allowed to introduce not only evidence about the bribe (a private act) but also the ambassadorial appointment (an official act) — otherwise, the jury would hear about only one side of the quid pro quo.

While the ruling cuts against what the Biden team would have wanted to see, they appear to be prepared to use the issue to highlight Trump’s conduct on and before Jan. 6, 2021, and the deluge of lies about the election he had lost.

One of the important findings by the court is this: The justices have given former presidents an expansive amount of protection against prosecution by ruling that there is presumption of immunity for acts that fall within “the outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties. That’s the same broad standard that protects presidents and former presidents against civil lawsuits. Whether the “outer perimeter” test holds up in Trump’s case remains to be seen.

While Trump’s lawyers requested immunity for anything he did while in office, during oral argument they suggested they would be pleased if the court set this broad “outer perimeter” standard.

Circling back to the court’s view of the specific allegations in Jack Smith’s indictment: Chief Justice Roberts's ruling expresses skepticism that Trump could be prosecuted for the speech he gave on Jan. 6 or any of his tweets that day. Roberts notes that “most of a president’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.” But he leaves open the possibility that Trump could face charges for his words if they were delivered as “a candidate for office.”

The President possesses “extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701. So most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.

There may, however, be contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader.

Several of the justices’ family members also attended the last day of the court's term, including Justice Kavanaugh’s parents and Jane Roberts, the chief justice’s wife. Michael Dreeban, a lawyer who argued on behalf of the special counsel in the immunity case, was also present. He took notes as Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion but showed little emotion.

Inside the courtroom, the anticipation and tension was palpable. Before Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the first opinion of the day — in a case about suing over regulations — she quipped, “Sorry this is not the case you’re waiting to hear so I’ll try to be concise.”

Trump posted a victorious message on his social media site, Truth Social: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"

As Justice Sotomayor's appalled dissent makes clear, this ruling is a dramatic expansion of presidential power — not just for Trump but for all presidents. She cites the notorious World War II ruling that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast.

The Supreme Court majority ruling sets the stage for a new appeals fight if prosecutors continue to want to tell the jury about former President Trump pressuring former Vice President Pence to disrupt the counting of Biden’s Electoral College votes — a linchpin to understanding the fake electors scheme , according to the indictment.

Chief Justice Roberts says Trump’s pressuring of Pence was certainly official conduct, but leaves open the question of whether it counts as the core kind for which Trump has absolute immunity, or a lessor kind where he has only a presumption of immunity that can be overcome.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the legitimacy of the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith: “If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.” That is an issue that the judge in the Trump classified documents case, Aileen Cannon, just held a hearing about . Notably, none of the other eight justices joined his concurring opinion.

JUSTICE THOMAS CONCURRING

If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.

Chief Justice Roberts’s analysis suggests that Trump talking to Pence about the Electoral College vote might not be entitled to immunity because Congress has legislated extensively to define the vice president’s role, and the president plays no direct part in that process. Chief Justice Roberts suggests that another context — a president talking to a vice president about casting a tie-breaking 51st vote in the Senate on legislation that is part of the White House’s agenda — is more likely to be immune.

But despite telegraphing that likely result, the Supreme Court does not just say that. It instead sends the issue back to Judge Chutkan.

Reporting from Washington

Presidents are partly shielded from prosecution, the Supreme Court rules.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the last election, a blockbuster decision in the heat of the 2024 campaign that vastly expanded presidential power.

The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines. Its immediate practical effect will be to further complicate the case against Mr. Trump, with the chances that it will go before a jury ahead of the election now vanishingly remote and the charges against him, at a minimum, narrowed.

The decision amounted to a powerful statement by the court’s conservative majority that presidents should be insulated from the potential that actions they take in carrying out their official duties could later be used by political enemies to charge them with crimes.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Mr. Trump had at least presumptive immunity for his official acts. He added that the trial judge must undertake an intensive factual review to separate official and unofficial conduct and to assess whether prosecutors can overcome the presumption protecting Mr. Trump for his official conduct.

If Mr. Trump prevails at the polls, the issue could become moot since he could order the Justice Department to drop the charges.

The liberal wing, in some of the harshest dissents ever filed by justices of the Supreme Court, said the majority had created a kind of king not answerable to the law.

Broad immunity for official conduct is needed, the chief justice wrote, to protect “an energetic, independent executive.”

“The president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy or party.”

The alternative, the chief justice wrote, is to invite tit-for-tat political reprisals.

“Virtually every president is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration or environmental laws),” he wrote. “An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous president violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-presidents could quickly become routine.”

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision was gravely misguided. In a rare move and sign of deep disagreement, she summarized her dissent from the bench, making off-the-cuff remarks that underscored her frustration.

“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,” she wrote. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”

In her own dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that “the court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself.”

Mr. Trump embraced the outcome on social media, celebrating the ruling. “Big win for our constitution and democracy,” he wrote in all-capital letters. “Proud to be an American!”

President Biden warned that the decision set a dangerous precedent. “The power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States,” he said, urging voters to prevent his Republican rival from winning a second term. “The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.”

The chief justice’s opinion recounted the events surrounding the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an understated, almost antiseptic summary, while the dissents called them a singular threat to democracy. And where the chief justice stressed the importance of protecting all presidents, the dissents focused on Mr. Trump.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to sift through the evidence and to separate protected conduct from the rest. “That analysis,” he wrote, “ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.”

But he issued guideposts for Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, of the Federal District Court in Washington, who is overseeing the case.

Mr. Trump, the chief justice wrote, is “absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

He added that Judge Chutkan should determine whether prosecutors can overcome Mr. Trump’s presumed immunity for his communications with Vice President Mike Pence.

“We therefore remand to the district court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the vice president’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as president of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch,” he wrote.

Other parts of the indictment against Mr. Trump, the chief justice said, require “a close analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.”

That includes, he wrote, Mr. Trump’s statements on Jan. 6, among them ones he made at the rally on the Ellipse.

“Whether the tweets, that speech and Trump’s other communications on Jan. 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a characteristically noncommittal passage.

He added, in a kind of refrain that ran through his opinion: “This necessarily fact-bound analysis is best performed initially by the district court.”

In all, the majority opinion was a broad defense of executive power and a detailed recipe for delay.

It was joined by the other Republican appointees: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and, in part, Amy Coney Barrett.

In dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that “the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark.”

“The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,” she wrote, adding: “The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.”

She gave examples: “Orders the Navy’s SEAL team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Chief Justice Roberts rejected the prosecutors’ arguments that evidence about official acts could be presented to the jury for context and information about Mr. Trump’s motives.

Mr. Trump contended that he was entitled to absolute immunity from the charges, relying on a broad understanding of the separation of powers and a 1982 Supreme Court precedent that recognized such immunity in civil cases for actions taken by presidents within the “outer perimeter” of their official responsibilities.

Lower courts rejected that claim.

“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy,” Judge Chutkan wrote , “the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get out of jail free’ pass.”

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed. “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote in an unsigned decision . “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

In agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court said it would decide this question: “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

The court heard two other cases this term concerning the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6.

In March, the court unanimously rejected an attempt to bar Mr. Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which makes people who engage in insurrection ineligible to hold office. The court, without discussing whether Mr. Trump was covered by the provision, ruled that states may not use it to exclude candidates for the presidency from the ballot.

On Friday, the court ruled that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. Two of the four charges against Mr. Trump are based on that law. In a footnote on Monday, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “if necessary, the district court should determine in the first instance” whether those charges may proceed in light of the decision last week.

The court decided the case restoring Mr. Trump to the ballot at a brisk pace, hearing arguments a month after agreeing to and issuing its decision a month after that.

The immunity case has moved at a considerably slower tempo. In December, in asking the justices to leapfrog the appeals court and hear the case immediately, Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the prosecution, wrote that “it is of imperative public importance that respond­ent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this court.” He added that “only this court can definitively resolve them.”

The justices denied Mr. Smith’s petition 11 days after he filed it, in a brief order without noted dissents.

After the appeals court ruled against Mr. Trump, he asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Sixteen days later, on Feb. 28, the court agreed to hear his appeal, scheduling arguments for almost two months later, on the last day of the term. Another two months have passed since then.

At the argument, several of the conservative justices did not seem inclined to examine the details of the charges against Mr. Trump. Instead, they said, the court should issue a ruling that applies to presidential power generally.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Gorsuch said.

The court’s announcement of that rule on Monday elicited some of the sharpest dissents ever by justices of the Supreme Court.

Justice Jackson, for instance, said the practical consequences of the majority opinion “are a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our government.”

Before reading from her prepared remarks, Justice Sotomayor appeared to address the chief justice directly: “Saying it so doesn’t make it so.”

She quoted mockingly from the majority’s opinion on how criminal prosecutions would have an even more chilling effect on the ability of a president to take “bold and unhesitating action.”

“Think about that — that makes no sense,” she said.

In her written dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Jackson and Elena Kagan, said: “The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”

Justice Sotomayor ended her opinion in unusual fashion. “With fear for our democracy,” she wrote, “I dissent.”

Chief Justice Roberts said the dissents were overwrought.

“They strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate,” he wrote, “to what the court actually does today — conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the president and his attorney general, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.”

Linda Qiu contributed reporting.

News Analysis

In taking up Trump’s immunity claim, the Supreme Court bolstered his delay strategy.

The Supreme Court tossed former President Donald J. Trump a legal lifeline months ago by making its original choice to hear his immunity claims, a move that substantially aided Mr. Trump’s efforts to delay his federal trial on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

By deciding to take up Mr. Trump’s argument that presidents enjoy almost total immunity from prosecution for official actions taken while in office — a legal theory rejected by two lower courts — the justices bought the former president several months before a trial on the election interference charges can start.

There is now only a slender possibility that Mr. Trump could still face a jury in the case, in Federal District Court in Washington, before Election Day.

Given the Supreme Court’s leisurely pace in issuing its decision and the amount of legal business left to conduct in the trial court, the odds are steep that voters will not get a chance to hear the evidence that Mr. Trump sought to subvert the last election before they decide whether to back him in the current one.

If Mr. Trump is successful in delaying the trial until after Election Day and he wins, he could use the powers of his office to seek to dismiss the election interference indictment altogether. Moreover, Justice Department policy precludes prosecuting a sitting president, meaning that, once sworn in, he could most likely have any federal trial he is facing postponed until after he left office.