+0
A weeks ago. John made a comment below.

John's comment: "it's against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months."

Now. I am reporting what he said, Let's consider his comment isn't relevant anymore, so I will use the past tense of "Say".

John said that It was against the law in our state for her to drive until she ____ seizure-free for six months.

I am really wondering which tense is good for the blank Could anyone answer for me?
Comments  
This is the correct sentence:

John said that it is/was against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been* seizure-free for six months.

*It will always be "has been", because it is a present-perfect-progressive. John is implying that it is against the law for her to drive, depending on the duration in which she's had no seizures. The quotations do not affect it at all.
Greetings, Icadia,

Direct speech: It's against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months.

Indirect speech:
1. The provisions of the legislation have probably not changed by the time of reporting John's words, so there is no need to change is into was;

2. If the indirect speech itself contains a subordinate clause (introduced by until... in your case), then the verb of that subordinate clause may be in the present tense because of the current validity even though both the main verb of the sentence and the superordinate verb are in the past:

John said that it is against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months.

(Please note that this rule works only if the until clause has current relevance, eg six months have not passed yet; otherwise, backshifting to had been seizure-free is required. Also, consider the possible change of the determiner our to their if it is needed)

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Thanks!!!! I appreciate your replies.

Yes. you are right. I think the legislation about driving is still effective, so the tenses don't need to be changed, which means his comment is still relevant.
I posted a contradictory question.

If his comment had been made more than a years ago, or the legislation wasn't effective anymore at present,

Indirect speech would be "it was against the law in our state for her to drive until she had been seizure-free for six months."

Am I understanding right?
To say frankly, What I really wanted to know is the tense after "Until"

Mark : I am going to wait here until the rain has stopped.
Indirect speech : He said he was going to wait there until the rain had stopped.

I am hoping you check my sentences again. Thanks for reading.
Icadia,

I understood the focus of your question; therefore, I mentioned that 'if the indirect speech itself contains a subordinate clause (introduced by until... in your case), then the verb of that subordinate clause may be in the present tense because of the current validity even though both the main verb of the sentence and the superordinate verb are in the past:

John said that it is against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months.'

... until the rain has stopped should be transformed into ... until the rain had stopped in indirect speech, no doubt about that. It is highly improbable that the rain hasn't yet stopped at the time of reporting Mark's words, so no misinterpretation is possible - the issue of rain is over and done with, so to say. However, we may re-interpret the proposition expressed in your first question as follows:
It is illegal for anyone to drive until one has been seizure-free for six months. Both the main and subordinate clause disclose the provisions of the law, and, if this law is not amended or eliminated, it has current relevance. In this case, no backshift occurs in reported speech.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff
Thanks for your nice answer. You helped me.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I was really glad to help, Icadia. Ask again should you have any further questions on grammar and related areas.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff