sounds

Big Brother fans predicted that this week would see a dramatic change to how nominations work

GK Barry and Kate Lawler have confirmed the next dramatic twist after the latest episode of Big Brother aired.

Fans believe they have already worked out the next housemate to be evicted after the presenters of ITV’s companion series The Group Chat confirmed the latest shake-up to nominations.

The current iteration of the show has seen a certain theme be imposed on the house. Following on from ‘the house of revelation’ it has now become ‘the house of power’.

It all began with the entrance of Gemma Collin s who spent a brief 48 hours among the housemates. Scenes shown during Monday night’s (October 12) saw Gemma spend her final day and make an abrupt exit.

Between this, the contestants were split into the red team and the blue team. Members of each side was picked by a captain picked by Gemma herself.

This saw the likes of Rob and Sam chosen to select who they wanted to team up with. Each had to then nominate someone over the last two days who should face a task.

Tonight, Twinks beat Lynx by building a tower of cards with four layers. It meant that the red team were treated to a pizza party with Gemma, while the blue team were left out. In addition, they were not permitted to sit on the sofas and could only shower for two minutes.

Try ITVX Premium free for a week

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£59.99

£0

ITVX

Get ITVX Premium here

ITVX Premium offers exclusive ad-free content that can be streamed on-demand and on the go, with everything from Hollywood blockbusters to bingeable British box sets.

An annual plan costs £59.99 – equal to £4.99 per month – after a seven-day free trial.

Following the main show, Kate Lawler and GK Barry interviewed Gemma and reflected on her stint back in the Big Brother house. They also eventually revealed this week’s twist to nominations.

Normal nominations will still take place but there could be an extra person up for the vote. GK Barry said: “Whoever wins this task as a group, they get to decide who is up for eviction.” Kate added: “The winning team is going to be in possession of a killer nomination.”

Taking to X following the shock announcement, one fan penned: “Killer nom for Phillip would be just lovely.” Another added: “Oh a killer nomination. I need red team to win.”

Someone else said: “This actually sounds exciting. I wonder if 3 will go up for eviction the, double eviction maybe?”

Big Brother continues tomorrow at 9pm on ITV2 and ITVX

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded wary Monday of state-by-state lawsuits that could impose huge damage verdicts on energy producers for the impact of global climate change.

Instead, several of them suggested these local and state claims may be blocked by the federal Clean Air Act.

“Interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. This kind of pollution is a federal matter unless Congress says otherwise.”

Justice Elena Kagan appeared to agree. State-by-state lawsuits “get in way of how Congress decided to regulate greenhouse gases,” she said.

At issue before the court was the question of whether cities and states may sue oil and gas producers for the damages inflicted by climate change.

California and nearly three dozen states and municipalities have filed such claims, but none have gone to trial.

Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder County may sue for damages in a local court.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the oil industry backed by the Trump administration. Its lawyers argued that the Constitution and federal law do not allow for such claims to be resolved in local courts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts sounded skeptical of opening the door to a wave of climate change lawsuits. “There will be 50 different cities. How would that work out?” he asked a lawyer representing Boulder.

For much of the two-hour argument, the justices struggled over whether federal law imposes a limit on such lawsuits, or instead whether states and their judges are free to seek damages for the harm they have suffered.

They did not signal a clear outcome but most of them sounded as though they leaned toward saying that federal law governs such far-reaching damage claims.

The energy producers turned to the Supreme Court after losing in state court.

They hope the high court will shut down more than three dozen lawsuits seeking damages for the impact of climate change.

So far, judges across the nation have been divided. Some have ruled that federal law preempts or blocks states and counties from suing under state law.

But others, including the Colorado Supreme Court, ruled the lawsuits may proceed under state law.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, a staunch conservative, said he is sitting out the case, presumably because he owns stock in oil companies that would be affected by a ruling.

If the court splits 4-4 and cannot rule, it would be major disappointment for the oil industry because it would allow all the climate-change suits to proceed, at least for now.