argument

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court opens its new term on Monday and is scheduled to hear arguments in 33 cases this fall.

The justices will hear challenges to transgender rights, voting rights and Trump tariffs and will reconsider a 90-year-old precedent that protects officials of independent agencies from being fired by the president.

Here are the major cases set for argument:

Conversion therapy and free speech: Does a licensed mental health counselor have a 1st Amendment right to talk to patients under age 18 about changing their sexual orientation or gender identity, even if doing so is prohibited by state law?

California in 2012 was first state to ban “conversion therapy,” believing it was harmful to minors and leads to depression and suicide. Other states followed, relying on their authority to regulate the practice of medicine and to prohibit substandard care.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, sued on behalf of a Colorado counselor and argued that the state is “censoring” her speech. (Chiles vs. Salazar, to be argued on Tuesday.)

Supreme Court Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., left, Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. attend inauguration ceremonies for Donald Trump in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20 in Washington.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Voting rights and Black majority districts: Does a state violate the Constitution if it redraws its congressional districts to create one with a Black majority?

In the past, the court has said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional. But citing the Voting Rights Act, it also has ruled states must sometimes create an electoral district where a Black or Latino candidate has a good chance to win.

Otherwise, these minorities may be shut out from political representation in Congress, state legislatures or county boards.

But Justice Clarence Thomas has argued for outlawing all use of race in drawing district lines, and the court may adopt his view in a pending dispute over a second Black majority district in Louisiana. (Louisiana vs. Callais, to be argued Oct. 15.)

Trump and tariffs: Does President Trump have legal authority acting on his own to impose large import taxes on products coming from otherwise friendly countries?

Trump is relying on a 1977 law that empowers the president to act when faced with an “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad. The measure does not mention tariffs or taxes.

In a pair of cases, lower courts ruled the tariffs were illegal but kept them in place for now. Trump administration lawyers argue the justices should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. (Learning Resources vs. Trump, to be argued Nov. 5.)

The high court will look at whether transgender athletes can compete in certain sports. Above, a 100-meter hurdles event during a track meet in Riverside in April.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Transgender athletes and school sports: Can a state prevent a transgender student whose “biological sex at birth” was male from competing on a girls sports team?

West Virginia and Idaho adopted such laws but they were struck down by judges who said they violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of laws and the federal Title IX law that bars sex discrimination in schools and colleges.

Trump voiced support for “keeping men out of women’s sports” — a characterization deemed false by transgender women and their advocates, among others. If the Supreme Court agrees, this rule is likely to be enforced nationwide under Title IX. (West Virginia vs. B.P.J. is due to be heard in December.)

Trump and independent agencies: May the president fire officials of independent agencies who were appointed with fixed terms set by Congress?

Since 1887, Congress has created semi-independent boards, commissions and agencies with regulatory duties. While their officials are appointed by the president, their fixed terms keep them in office when a new president takes over.

The Supreme Court upheld their independence from direct presidential control in the 1935 case of Humphreys Executor vs. U.S., but Trump has fired several such officials.

The current court has sided with Trump in two such cases and will hear arguments on whether to overturn the 90-year-old precedent. (Trump vs. Slaughter is due to be argued in December.)

WASHINGTON — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-tracking ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.

In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.

They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.

“Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.” he wrote.

Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.

First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and a tariff is an import tax.

Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.

And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold new costly regulations.

So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.

Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Acts of the 1970s.

Two years ago, the court by the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the Covid 19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.

The impact of Trump’s tariffs figure to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.

By a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.

“We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.

But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.

Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by other others.

He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.

He called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.

Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that President Trump’s administration is listening to the Kremlin’s justifications for its invasion of neighboring Ukraine and claimed that Moscow and Washington have come to a “mutual understanding” about the conflict.

Putin said during a visit to China that “the [Trump] administration is listening to us,” as he complained that former President Biden paid Moscow’s arguments no heed.

“Now we see this mutual understanding; it’s noticeable,” Putin said at a bilateral meeting with pro-Russian Slovak President Robert Fico after talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing. “We are very happy about this and hope this constructive dialogue will continue.”

But Russia faces possible punitive actions by Trump, who has expressed frustration at Putin’s lack of engagement in U.S.-led peace efforts and threatened unspecified “severe consequences.” The American president has made ending the three-year war one of his diplomatic priorities and hosted Putin at a summit in Alaska last month.

Putin attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in the Chinese city of Tianjin with Xi and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who are also facing pressure from Trump. The SCO started out as a security forum viewed as a foil to U.S. influence in Central Asia, but it has grown in influence over the years.

After the summit, the Russian leader held talks with Xi in Beijing, and on Wednesday he was to attend a massive military parade there commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.

In Beijing, Putin struck an apparently amenable tone about possible progress in some aspects of the discussions to stop the fighting, although his comments reflected no substantial change in Russia’s position. Western leaders have accused Putin of marking time in peace efforts while Russia’s bigger army seeks to overwhelm Ukrainian defenses.

On the key issue of possible postwar security guarantees for Ukraine to deter another Russian invasion, Putin said: “It seems to me that there is an opportunity to find consensus.” He didn’t elaborate.

While Putin reiterated that Moscow will not accept membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for Ukraine, he also noted that he had never objected to Ukraine joining the European Union.

He also said Russia “can work with our American partners” at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest and one of the 10 biggest atomic power plants in the world. Its fate has been a central concern of the war due to fears of a nuclear accident.

Putin said Russia could also work with Ukraine on the Zaporizhzhia question — “if favorable conditions arise.”

Fico said he planned to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday in the Ukrainian city of Uzhorod, which lies on the border with Slovakia, to talk about Ukraine’s attacks on Russian energy infrastructure.

Slovakia and Hungary, which refuse to provide arms to Ukraine, condemned recent strikes by Ukrainian troops against Russian oil infrastructure, namely the Druzhba oil pipeline. The two countries, as well as the Czech Republic, are exempt from a European Union ban on importing Russian oil, which they rely on.

Fico told Putin he wants to normalize relations and develop business ties with Russia while continuing to import Russian oil and natural gas.

Taylor now takes on a fresh opportunity at Liverpool, who finished seventh in the Women’s Super League last season.

There is work to do, he acknowledges, having taken a few months to get his appointment over the line because of contractual issues from his previous post at City.

During that time, Liverpool’s star player Olivia Smith was sold to Arsenal for a world record £1m fee, joining vice-captain Taylor Hinds, who ended her five-year stint with the Reds.

“Those players go with our best wishes. You never want to retain a player that probably has her eye on a move and we understand that completely,” said Taylor.

“There is work to do, for sure. We don’t want to lose top players like those two but it makes the challenge a little bit more difficult.

“Ideally [myself and my staff] would have been here a little bit earlier but it is what it is. In the days we have been here, we have seen big strides.

“The engagement from the players has been fantastic. They are a really good group of girls. The people here are incredible. The club is top class in that sense.”

Liverpool are rebuilding to try to close the gap between themselves and the WSL’s top four.

“The challenges here will be different to any other club. But what we have here is a very good opportunity to start to build something,” said Taylor.

“The environment at Melwood is incredible. The girls are really hungry to learn and to create an identity. That’s the key thing. That process is not a quick one.

“It takes time and it takes struggles, unfortunately. It’s clear that will happen. But we’re really understanding of that and we’re here to support the players and staff as much as we can to be as quickly aligned as we can be.”

The Trump administration asked a federal appeals court Monday to allow immigration agents to resume unfettered raids across Southern California, seeking to overturn a federal judge’s order in Los Angeles that barred “roving patrols” in seven counties.

The order “is inflicting irreparable harm by preventing the Executive from ensuring that immigration laws are enforced, severely infringing on the President’s Article II authority,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote in a motion asking for an emergency stay on Monday. “These harms will be compounded the longer that injunction is in place.”

After weeks of aggressive sweeps by masked and heavily armed federal agents, the operations seemingly ceased in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties following a temporary restraining order granted Friday night by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong.

A coalition of civil rights groups and private attorneys sued the federal government, challenging the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests that have sown terror and sparked widespread protest since June 6.

“It should tell you everything you need to know that the federal government is rushing to appeal an order that instructs them only to follow the Constitution,” said Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney with ACLU of Southern California, who argued the case. “We look forward to defending the temporary restraining order and ensuring that communities across Southern California are safe from the federal government’s violence.”

Despite arguments from the Trump administration that its tactics are valid, Frimpong ruled that using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The judge found that preventing detainees from meeting with lawyers violates the right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

“What the federal government would have this court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening,” she wrote.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem incorrectly referred to Frimpong as a man when responding to the order during a news conference Saturday, saying of the judge’s order: “He’s an idiot.”

“We have all the right in the world to go out on the streets and to uphold the law and to do what we’re going to do. So none of our operations are going to change,” Noem said. “We’re going to appeal it and we’re going to win.”

In addition to blocking roving patrols, the judge also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to open part of its detention facility in Downtown Los Angeles to attorneys and legal aid groups.

“While the district court injunction is a significant victory for immigrants, the whiplash of court orders and appeals breeds uncertainty,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at UC Law San Francisco. “That form of real-world insecurity weakens communities and undermines democratic values in places like LA.”

The Trump administration did not immediately contest the 5th Amendment portion of the ruling. Instead, its attacked the 4th Amendment claim, seeking a stay that would immediately restore the status quo for immigration agents across Southern California while the case is heard by judges from the higher court.

“It is untenable for a district judge to single-handedly ‘restructure the operations’ of federal immigration enforcement,” the appeal argued. “This judicial takeover cannot be allowed to stand.”

But some experts say that’s unlikely.

“Their argument [is] the sky’s falling,” said professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. “They make very extreme arguments, and that doesn’t necessarily help their case in the 9th Circuit.”

The appeal escalates an already fierce and sprawling legal battle over Trump’s promised mass deportations and the means used to achieve it.

After the president deployed troops to quell anti-ICE protests in June, California sued and won a temporary restraining order that would have stripped the president of command.

The appellate panel swiftly blocked that decision, before overturning it in mid-June, leaving thousands of soldiers in Trump’s hands.

But the Trump appointee who authored the June 19 ruling, Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, also bristled at the government’s argument that the president’s actions in the case were “unreviewable.”

“Some of the things they say are unorthodox, arguments we don’t usually hear in court,” Chen said. “Instead of framing this as executive overreach, they’re saying the judiciary’s efforts to put limits on executive power is judicial overreach.”

Last week, another 9th Circuit judge challenged that June decision, petitioning the court to rehear the issue with a larger “en banc” panel — a move that could nudge the case to the Supreme Court.

“Before [courts] became so politicized, many judges would often defer to the 3-judge panels that first heard appeals, because they trusted their colleagues,” Tobias said. “Increasing politicization of most appeals courts and somewhat decreased collegiality complicate efforts to predict how the Ninth’s judges will vote in this case.”

Meanwhile, California is gathering evidence to bolster its claim that Marines and National Guard forces participating in immigration enforcement run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids using soldiers to enforce civilian laws.

Compared to those questions, the legal issues in the L.A. appeal are simple, experts said.

“What makes this case different is how much it’s based on facts,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “It’s much harder for an appellate court to overturn a trial court finding of fact then it is with regard to legal conclusions.”

The Love Island villa erupted into chaos yet again tonight, and it was a double blow for bombshell Emily after Conor expressed his interest in Megan as Toni called her irritating

It looks like the whole Love Island villa is in for a switch up as Islanders heads continue to turn. Last night, heads began to turn as Harry took Yasmin for a trip to the Hideaway Terrace. Tonight, the focus was on Emily and Toni as they erupted into a huge unexpected argument.

The confrontation came in the mist of Conor, who is currently coupled up with Emily making a beeline for Megan, who is currently in a strong couple with Tommy. However, it wasn’t the only blow for Emily, as Toni announced she was “irritating” her.

Surprising Meg and Dejon with her thoughts on Emily, Toni told them: “I can’t stand to listen to her… ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ all the time.”

Later that night, it was made clear to Emily that Toni had been bad mouthing her.

Elsewhere, in a chat with Shakira, Toni expressed her interest in Conor, who she was coupled up with before Emily. Despite this, Toni insisted her problem with Emily wasn’t anything to do with Conor.

She later revealed her problems with Emily started when either Toni and Malisha were about to go home – claiming Emily was in a good mood during a bad situation. “Read the room,” she told her.

The two went back and forth as Emily exclaimed: “Some people just want to cause a problem.” Toni responded: “It has absolutely nothing to do with this, I don’t give a f**k if you’re with Conor.”

Although some fans believed the reason was secretly Conor, others think they’ve worked why the two were arguing – believing something had happened off camera.

Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, one fan penned: “Imma stick beside Toni cos theres defo something we aint seen for her to be so done,” while another agreed: “There must be more to the story because Emily handled the Callum thing so well and Toni seemed to appreciate that. I’ve not really seen them interact much since.”

Another suggested: “I think Toni didn’t just crash out on Emily for nothing. I think Emily seems like a nice girl but playing teams like taking info from Shakira X Toni’s team to the mean girls’ team of Megan Meg and Helena and nobody would be cool with that. Just my thought.”

Elsewhere, Harry’s head turned once again, and this time it’s back to Shakira. The pair coupled up on the second day, causing Sophie to be dumped from the villa. However, things didn’t work out when Harry moved onto Helena, but it looks like he’s now regretting not exploring things further with Shakira.

“I wanted to see how you were feeling, I think initially you were number one and I f****d it,” he said.

How will things unfold now everyone’s head has turned once again?

Love Island 2025 airs every night at 9PM on ITV2 and ITVX. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok ,Snapchat ,Instagram ,Twitter ,Facebook ,YouTube and Threads .

NEW YORK — As President Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime.

On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump’s long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can then seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds.

It’s one way he’s trying to get the historic verdict overturned.

The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump’s lawyer and the appellate chief for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court.

At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides’ arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president’s request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date.

But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: It is a highly unusual case.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president “a class of one” and Judge Susan L. Carney noted that it was “anomalous” for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court.

Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and Myrna Pérez, were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Biden, respectively.

The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court.

Trump’s Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Everything about this cries out for federal court,” Wall argued.

Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump’s historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.

“The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,” Wall argued. “He doesn’t have to introduce this evidence.”

Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney’s office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., recently ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown. Trump hasn’t done that, Wu argued.

While “this defendant is an unusual defendant,” Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court.

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial.

Trump’s lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from “conduct performed while in office.” Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president.

They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump’s conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president.

Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should’ve acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan.

Merchan ultimately rejected Trump’s request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press.

A fight broke out on Damlatas Beach in the Alanya district of Antalya, Turkey over the price of sunbed rental, according to local media reports. The scrap was watch by beachgoers and captured on video

A tourist who decided not to buy a sunbed was beaten up by a resort worker on a popular Turkish beach, it has been reported.

The fight broke out on Damlatas Beach in the Alanya district of Antalya and was watched by crowds of tourists. A sunseeker had been enjoying the rays and asked a resort employee how much sun lounger rentals cost, Milliyet reported.

The tourist decided the price was too high and forgoed the sunbed, opting instead to put his things on the sand. The worker then asked him to remove his belongings and leave the resort. At this point, the fight broke out.

Do you have a holiday story to share? Email [email protected]

The violence was caught on video. The clip shows several men swarming around a man in swimming trunks who falls to the floor as they beat him. He struggles to get off the sand onto his feet as they continue the pummelling. Several sunworshippers lounging on towels nearby watched on, clearly shocked by the outbreak of violence.

Alanya District Governor Fatih Ürkmezer said that the sunbed business had been closed following the fight.

“Judicial and administrative procedures regarding the attack on a tourist that occurred in a beach business in Alanya in recent days, which does not reflect our city and our understanding of tourism, have been initiated immediately,” he told local media, clearly concerned about the impact the fight and video of it could have on tourism to the area.

“Approaches that are contrary to the understanding of hospitality of both our city and our country will not be tolerated in Alanya, one of the cities where tourism first began in Turkey.”

Business owner Serhan Koçaroğlu sent a written statement to the press following the incident, giving his version of events. He claimed that the incident occurred outside the beach borders of his business and that the beaten man had provoked the attack. Mr Koçaroğlu also said that the tourist was Russian and not British, as some local media outlets have suggested.

Sign up to the Mirror Travel WhatsApp group for a

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

selection of the best travel stories, straight to your phone

Mirror Travel

Click here to join the group

You can get a breaking travel stories along with some of the most interesting, important and fun travel stories sent to your phone every day by subscribing to the Mirror Travel WhatsApp. It’s completely free and takes minutes to do.

“A Russian tourist, under the influence of alcohol, threw a sunbed at our Turkish customer sitting in a lodge on our beach. When I went to intervene, I was physically attacked by the tourist in question,” Mr Koçaroğlu said.

“The scuffle that broke out when some citizens and Turkish customers on the beach reacted after they saw me being beaten was recorded. There is no footage of the beginning of the incident. Also, it is not legally possible to have security cameras on the beach.”

Mr Koçaroğlu said that he decided not to contact police following the incident as he did not want to damage the reputation of Alanya, Milliyet reported.

The sunbed scuffle was the first major lounger-related incident to make news of the summer season. However, there are bound to be plenty more as families head out to swimming pools and beaches across southern Europe for a spot of sunshine.