startup germany tour

.st0{fill:#E3051B;} .st1{fill:#009FE3;}

Start.up germany tour 2022.

23.10.2022 - 27.10.2022

veranstaltet von IHK NRW, AHK, DIHK, Ruhr IHK, IHK Düsseldorf & IHK Köln

Chamber of Commerce and Industry Dortmund Märkische Strasse 120 44141 Dortmund Phone: 02315417-0 Fax: 02315417-8195 Web: https://www.dortmund.ihk24.de E-Mail: [email protected]

FEEL THE PULSE OF THE MOST EXCITING GERMAN STARTUP ECOSYSTEM.

WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT? The Start.up! Germany Tour is a mainly digital tour and is about bringing international startups from abroad in touch with corporates and important players from North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) and showing them the benefits of NRW as a business location and of establishing a business here. The main program is organized from October 23 – 26, 2022 (see #CONNECTING).

HOW TO BE PART OF? With the help of our local partners (e.g. German Chambers of Commerce Abroad (AHK)), we are identifying and selecting innovative startups from all around the world which are active in the areas of Logistics/Mobility , Green Tech or Industrial Solutions . However, only five startups per country are allowed to be part of the Start.up! Germany Tour. This selection is made by our local partners! These startups get then the opportunity, during our main program in October , to get in touch with our local companies, accelerators, institutions, and potential investors. Maybe you are one of the participants!

SO , if you want to be part of the Start.up! Germany, click on “ APPLY NOW ”. Here, we bring you in contact with the local partner from your country in case you are NOT yet.

• Datenschutz

Direct exchange and interaction with innovative start-ups and entrepreneurs

Startups alone in berlin, get inspired from how startups work, discover europe’s startup hotspot.

In Berlin, Europe’s most vibrant startup scene welcomes you to gain some rare insights into how startups work at the forefront of innovation.

Learn from Startup Founders and Entrepreneurs

Use this unique opportunity to chat with successful founders about new business models and develop your own ideas during inspiring conversations and pitches.

Reach out and expand your business network

Use your time in Berlin to establish partnerships with entrepreneurs to jointly develop new business models and co-operations.

Plan your Tour now

Startup tour basic.

Get in Touch with Berlin’s Startup scene. You will have half a day in Berlin to meet successful entrepreneurs and listen to inspiring talks that will help your organisation grow.

Half a day – max. 10 participants

Visit up to 3 Startups

Choose one of our inspirational sessions

Startup Tour

Your personal deep dive into Europe’s startup hotspot. Spend a day or two, visiting startups, listening to exciting talks, and have drinks or dine with successful entrepreneurs.

1 to 2 days – 1 to 200 participants

Discover up to 10 startups

Up to 3 freely selectable sessions

After-hour drinks with founders and entrepreneurs

Why Startup Tour Berlin?

For more information, please refer to the privacy policy .

Startups as partners

Tours organized, satisfied participants, opportunity for established companies.

Personal exchange with innovative startups from your industry

Discover the potential of digital business models and disruptive technologies

Learn directly from successful entrepreneurs

Gather inspiration for your own innovative products

Opportunity for participating Startups

Meet established companies and global players personally

Get value feedback on your product and company

Grow a network beyond the startup scene

Find potential partners for growth and business development

Partners and Supporters

Discover berlin's startup scene.

Plan your Startup Tour now!

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. They also allow us to analyze user behavior in order to constantly improve the website for you. For more information, see the privacy policy .

Last year’s first fully digital Start.up! Germany Tour was a great success: We welcomed 124 startups from 30 countries and initiated the first collaborations between these startups and our companies. In addition, many hundreds of startups from around the world watched our preparatory webinars. 2021 marks our fifth anniversary, and we will make sure to make it even more memorable! We are doing this again as an alliance of the Chambers of Industry and Commerce in the Ruhr region, Düsseldorf and Cologne with the support of the DIHK.

This year, up to five (5) selected startups from the sectors Smart City, Insurtech or Logistics & mobility can participate ad represent Finland during the digital tour!

To participate in this year's pitch event, kindly register below. Deadline for registration for the pitch contest is 30. August 2021.

For participation without the option of the pitch contest, we ask you to apply by 01.10.202 1 at the latest.

Does the digital tour offer the same scope?

• Yes! Like every year, we bring your startups together with numerous German companies and introduce them to the German market.
• They will pitch, attend conferences, and meet numerous new potential partners.
• Mobility/Logistics

For more information about the Start.up! Germany Tour 2021, click below:

Criteria Startup Selection

START.UP! GERMANY TOUR 2021

• Logistics & Mobility
• The startup should be younger than ten years.
• The startup must have passed the seed stage and be successful on the market. Successful accomplishments of first investor rounds are a plus.
• The startup has already developed a scalable business model with an international approach, preferably with a German/European focus.
• If there is still a need to catch up here, the startups should attend the preparatory webinars.
• The startup should be willing and able to present in public in pitches in a professional manner and in fluent business English.

Sisko Kilvensalmi

• +358 50 520 7256
• E-Mail schreiben
• vCard herunterladen

• Skip to content
• About the country

Start.up! Germany Tour 2021

Are you a Swedish startup ready for internationalization? Curious about the German market? The German-Swedish Chamber of Commerce, partner of the Swedish-German Cleantech Platform (SGCP), invites five Swedish startups to participate in the Start.Up! Germany Tour 2021 from 14 to 17 November 2021 . Start.Up! Germany Tour 2021 – startupgermany.nrw

In this digital conference startups from insurtech, mobility/logistics and smart cities will have the possibility to establish contact with German corporates, pitch for potential customers and partners and gain valuable insights into the innovation ecosystem in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW). NRW is one of the focus federal states of SGCP and with its 18 million inhabitants not only Germany’s most populous federal state, but also a hot spots for startups. In total, young companies from 38 countries participate in the tour.

Do you want to participate? Register until June 30th

For startups participation is free of charge. To join the tour startups must not be older than 10 years, have a scalable business model and focus on the German market. If your startup fulfills these criteria you are more than welcome to register for the tour until June 30 th . The German-Swedish Chamber of Commerce will select, based on applications, the five startups that will be given the opportunity to participate in the tour.

Registration – app.bwz.se

Win a pitch trip to Düss eldorf

On top of the digital conference there will be a physical event during the tour: 15 selected startups will be invited to Düsseldorf to pitch in a final competition. In total, there is €30,000 price money, thereof €7,500 for the winner. Each country is supposed to nominate one startup for a regional competition which leads to the final. Which Swedish startup will be selected is announced at the end of August. Criteria are, besides the above, market readiness and best fit to the German challenges within Energiewende . The final pitch will take place on the last day of the tour.

Webinar series

To prepare all interested startups for the tour and give a first glimpse into the German market there will be a webinar series. All startups, whether participating in the tour or not, are welcome. The first webinar is on June 8 th and focuses on the startup-ecosystem in NRW.  Pre-program – startupgermany.nrw

The tour is arranged by the chambers of commerce in the Ruhr area . Partners are NRW.Global Business , Germany Trade and Invest and the department of economics in NRW. Ruhrregion– dortmund.ihk24.de NRW.Global Business – nrwglobalbusiness.com Germany Trade and Invest – gtai.de

Welcome to the tour!

.lumen Wins Start.up! Germany Tour

Updated: 5 days ago

We are thrilled to announce that .lumen has emerged as the first Romanian startup to win the Start.up! Germany Tour.

A Prestigious Competition

Organized by the AHK (German Chambers of Commerce Abroad), the Start.up! Germany Tour is aimed at supporting startups from around the world in establishing a presence in Germany. This competition provides a platform for startups to connect with the vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystem of Germany.

Seizing Opportunities

Over the course of a few days, finalists had the invaluable opportunity to engage with the local ecosystem of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) and explore potential synergies with key players in the region. This immersive experience not only provided insights into the German market but also paved the way for future collaborations and partnerships.

A Moment of Pride

Winning the Start.up! Germany Tour is a testament to the innovative vision and dedication of the .lumen team. We are honoured to have been selected among a pool of talented startups and are excited about the possibilities that lie ahead.

Future Ventures

As we look to the future, .lumen is eager to further explore opportunities in Germany and strengthen our presence in the region. Stay tuned for more exciting updates and developments as we continue our journey of innovation and growth.

We invite you to watch the aftermovie:

#startups #innovation #Germany #dotlumen #AHK

Recent Posts

.lumen in the EIC Scaling Club

EIC Summit in Brussels

.lumen Opened Nvidia GTC

Stay up to date with our weekly newsletter

69 Best Germany Startups to Watch in 2024

How do we build this list? TLDR: Using math and experts.

Last update to the database: May 26, 2024. See changelog .

Join 23,000+ founders, operators and investors.

How do we build this list?

Seedtable Score Learn how we calculate it here

Sign up to Seedtable Intel to access the entire database

Sign up to access our full database

Enter your email and get access to 17,000+ technology companies you can partner with – 2,024 in Germany .

• Germany (2024)
• France (2022)
• Spain (1018)
• Sweden (979)
• Switzerland (775)
• Netherlands (645)
• Italy (551)
• Denmark (517)
• Finland (470)
• Norway (433)
• Ireland (317)
• Belgium (312)
• Poland (274)
• Scotland (274)
• Portugal (259)
• Estonia (236)
• Austria (230)
• Turkey (214)
• Czech Republic (150)
• Bulgaria (147)
• Hungary (141)
• Iceland (129)
• Malta (119)
• Romania (116)
• Luxembourg (95)
• Lithuania (93)
• Greece (56)
• The Netherlands (55)
• Latvia (40)
• Slovakia (30)
• Cyprus (29)
• Slovenia (25)
• Berlin (698)
• Munich (367)
• Hamburg (187)
• Frankfurt (140)
• Cologne (128)
• Düsseldorf (106)
• Stuttgart (105)
• Dortmund (60)
• Dresden (23)

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Supreme Court Is Not Done Remaking America

Some of the rulings that came before the justices’ decision on presidential immunity could prove to have just as big an impact..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

When the Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week, much of the focus was on the ruling that gave Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. But as my colleague Adam Liptak explains, a set of rulings that generated far less attention could have just as big an impact on American government and society.

It’s Monday, July 8.

Adam, welcome back. It hasn’t been very long, but we want to talk to you about the rest of the Supreme Court’s decisions that happened over the past few weeks, the rest meaning the non-Trump decisions. There were a lot of other cases, many of which we covered on the show over the past year, but we haven’t yet talked about where the justices landed as they issued their rulings on these cases over the past few weeks. So I wonder if you can walk us through some of the bigger decisions and what, taken as a whole, this entire term really means. So where should we start?

Well, this term had so many major cases, Michael, on so many important issues touching all aspects of American politics and society, that it’s a little hard to know where to start. But I think one way to think about the term is to ask, how much is this a 6-3 court? There are six conservatives in the majority, the three liberal justices in dissent. Are we going to get that kind of classic lineup time after time after time?

And one way to start answering that question is to look at two areas which are kind of part of the court’s greatest hits, areas where they’ve done a lot of work in the last few terms — guns and abortion.

OK, let’s start with guns.

The court had two big guns cases. One of them involved the Second Amendment and broke 8 to 1 against Second Amendment rights. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, the most avid supporter of gun rights, was in dissent. So let me tell you just a little bit about this case.

There’s a federal law that says people subject to domestic violence restraining orders, it’s a crime for them to have guns. A guy named Zackey Rahimi was subject to such a domestic violence restraining order, but he goes to court and says, this law violates my Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment protects me and allows me to have a gun even if I’m in this status.

And that goes to the Supreme Court. And the way the Supreme Court analyzes this question is it looks to a test that it established only a couple of years ago, in 2022, which said you judge the constitutionality of gun control laws using history. You kind of go back in time and you see whether the community and the founding era disarmed people in the same way that the current law disarms people.

And you might think that actually, back in the 1700s, there were no such things as domestic violence restraining orders. So you might think that the answer is, this contemporary law is unconstitutional. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for an eight-justice majority, says, no, that’s not quite right. We’re going to kind of roll back the specificity of the test and look at very general principles. Can you disarm dangerous people back then? And if you can do that, then you can disarm Rahimi, even under this law that the founding generation could not have contemplated.

That’s really interesting. So the court, its conservative majority especially, seems to be saying that our last big decision made it too hard to regulate guns. We need to fix that. So we’re going to search really hard for a way to make sure that somebody with a restraining order for domestic abuse can’t legally have a gun.

Right. On the other hand, there was a second guns case, not involving the Second Amendment, but posing an important issue. The question in the case was whether the Trump administration was allowed to enact a gun control regulation in 2017 after the Las Vegas shooting in which, at an outdoor music festival, a gunman killed 58 people, wounded 500 more.

And the Trump administration, prompted by this massacre, they issue a regulation that tries to outlaw bump stocks. What are bump stocks? They’re devices that turn semi-automatic weapons into weapons that can fire at rates approaching a machine gun. And drawing on the authority of a 1934 law which bans, for the most part, civilian ownership of machine guns, it said bump stocks are basically the same thing, and we will, by regulation, outlaw them.

And the question for the court was, did the 1934 law authorize that? And here — and this is a typical split on this kind of stuff — the majority, the conservative majority, takes a textualist approach. It bears down on the particular words of the statute. And Justice Thomas looks at the words that Congress said a machine gun is one where a single function of the trigger causes all of these bullets to fly. And a bump stock, he said, is not precisely that. Therefore, we’re going to strike down this regulation.

So how do you reconcile these two divergent gun rulings, one where the court works really hard to allow for gun restrictions in the case of domestic abusers, and another where they seem to have no compunction about allowing for a bump stock that I think most of us, practically speaking, understand as making a semiautomatic weapon automatic in the real world?

I think the court draws a real distinction between two kinds of cases. One is about interpreting the Constitution, interpreting the Second Amendment. And in that area, it is plowing new ground. It has issued maybe four major Second Amendment cases, and it’s trying to figure out how that works and what the limits are. And the Rahimi case shows you that they’re still finding their way. They’re trying to find the right balance in that constitutional realm where they are the last word.

The bump stocks case doesn’t involve the Constitution. It involves an interpretation of a statute enacted by Congress. And the majority, in those kinds of cases, tends to read statutes narrowly. And they would say that that’s acceptable because unlike in a constitutional case, if it’s about a congressional statute, Congress can go back and fix it. Congress can say whatever it likes.

Justice Samuel Alito said, in the bump stocks case, this massacre was terrible, and it’s a pity Congress didn’t act. But if Congress doesn’t act, a regulator can’t step in and do what Congress didn’t do.

That’s interesting, because it suggests a surprising level of open-mindedness among even the court’s most conservative justices to an interpretation of the Constitution that may allow for a greater level of gun regulation than perhaps we think of them as being interested in.

Yeah. When we’re talking about the Constitution, they do seem more open to regulating guns than you might have thought.

OK. You also mentioned, Adam, abortion. Let’s talk about those decisions from this court.

So the Court, in 2022, as everyone knows, overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. But in two cases this term, they effectively enhanced the availability of abortion.

One of them involves emergency rooms. There’s a federal statute that says that emergency rooms that receive federal money have to treat patients and give them stabilizing care if they arrive in the emergency room. That seems to conflict with a strict Idaho law that prohibits abortions except to save the life of the mother.

The court agrees to hear the case, it hears arguments, and then it dismisses the case. It dismisses it as improvidently granted, which is judicial speak for “never mind.” But it’s very tentative. The court merely dismissed the case. It said it was too early to hear it. They’re going to look at it later. So it’s a very tentative sliver of a victory for abortion rights.

But nonetheless, the effect of this is to suspend the Idaho law, at least to the extent it conflicts with the federal law. And it lets emergency abortions continue. Women in Idaho have more access to emergency abortions as a consequence of this decision than if the court had gone the other way.

And of course, the other abortion case centered on the abortion pill, mifepristone.

Right. And that pill is used in a majority of abortions. And the availability of that pill is crucial to what remains of abortion rights in the United States. Lower courts had said that the Food and Drug Administration exceeded its authority in approving these abortion pills. And the case comes to the Supreme Court.

And here, again, they rule in favor of abortion rights. They maintain the availability of these pills, but they do so, again, in a kind of technical way that does not assure that the pills will forever remain available. What the court says, merely — and unanimously — is that the particular plaintiffs who challenged the law, doctors and medical groups who oppose abortion, didn’t have standing, hadn’t suffered the sort of direct injury, that gave them the right to sue.

And it got rid of the case on standing grounds. But that’s not a permanent decision. Other people, other groups can sue, have sued. And the court didn’t decide whether the FDA approval was proper or not, only that the lawsuit couldn’t go forward. And here, too, this case is a victory for abortion rights, but maybe an ephemeral one, and may well return to the court, which has not given an indication of how it will turn out if they actually address the merits.

Got it. So this is a court, the one you’re describing in these rulings, acting with some nuance and some restraint?

Yeah, this picture is complicated.

This is not the court that we’re used to thinking about. There are a lot of crosscurrents. There are a lot of surprises. And that was true, in those cases, on big issues, on guns and abortion. But in another set of cases, the court moved aggressively to the right and really took on the very power and structure of the federal government.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

We’ll be right back.

So Adam, tell us about these cases where the court was less nuanced, less, perhaps, judicious, and really tried to move aggressively to the right and take on the power of government?

So it’s been a long-term goal of the conservative legal movement to weaken the power of regulators, of taking on what they call the administrative state. And this term, the court really vindicated that decades-old project primarily by overruling the foundational precedent in this area, a precedent that gave expert agencies the power to interpret federal laws and enact regulations to protect consumers, investors, all manner of people.

And the court overruled that decision called Chevron. It was as important as the court, two years ago, overruling the right to abortion, one year ago, overruling affirmative action in higher education. This decision will reshape the way the federal government does its work.

Right. And Adam, as I recall, because we did a whole episode about this with you, Chevron created a framework whereby if a law has any ambiguity about how it’s supposed to play out, that the experts within the federal government, within the EPA or the FDA, you name the agency, that we collectively defer to them and their wisdom, and that that becomes the basis for how these laws get interpreted and carried out.

That’s right. And if you think about it, Michael, Congress can’t anticipate every circumstance. Congress will, on purpose sometimes, and inevitably at other times, leave gaps in the law. And those gaps need to be filled by someone. And the choice that the Chevron decision made was to say, we’re going to let the expert regulator fill in those gaps. If there are ambiguities in statutes, the reasonable interpretation of the regulator will get deference from courts.

Experts, not judges, will decide this matter, is what Chevron said 40 years ago. And it’s really hard to overstate the consequences of overruling Chevron. It will open countless, countless regulations to judicial challenge. It may actually kind of swamp the courts. The courts have relied very heavily on Chevron to make difficult decisions about complicated stuff, questions about the environment, and food safety, and drugs, and securities, questions that really often require quite technical expertise.

So what was the court’s rationale for changing that Chevron framework that’s been in place for so long?

What the six-justice majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts says is that Chevron was a wrong turn from the outset, that unelected bureaucrats should not be empowered to say what the law means, that that’s the job of judges. So it moves from the expert agency to federal judges the determination of all sorts of important issues. And it probably has the effect of deregulating much of American society.

I mean, in the old world, the regulator had a thumb on the scale. The regulator’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute was the one that counted. And now, the judge will have a fresh look at it. That doesn’t mean that, in every case, the challenger wins, and in every case, the regulator loses. But it shifts the balance and it makes challenges more likely to succeed.

Where else did we see this instinct by the court to challenge the government’s authority in this term?

So right after the court overturns Chevron, it issues a second decision that really amplifies the power of that decision, because it says that challenges can be brought not only in the usual six-year statute of limitations from when a regulation is issued, but six years from when it first affects a company.

And bear with me, because that’s a big difference. If I start a company tomorrow, I have six years to sue over a regulation that affects it, even though that regulation may have been in place for 30 years. So it restarts the clock on challenges, and that one-two punch, both of them decided by 6-3 majorities, go even further in reshaping the ability of the federal government to regulate.

I just want to be sure I understand something. So in the past, let’s say the Clean Water Act was passed in the 1970s. Under the old statute of limitations, a company could sue and say that regulation is a problem for six years. But you’re saying a new company formed right now could go back and sue over something in a 30 - or 40-year-old law and how it’s being interpreted. In other words, this ruling means there really isn’t a statute of limitations on challenging these regulations any longer.

That’s right. And it’s not as though you can’t form a company just for the purpose of litigation. I mean, it completely opens up the ability of industries, trade groups just to set up a trivial nothing company that will then be said to be affected by the regulation and then can sue from now until the end of time.

And the liberal justices sure understood what was happening here, that this one-two punch, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent, was a catastrophe for regulators. She wrote, “At the end of a momentous term, this much is clear — that tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the court’s holdings in this case have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the federal government.”

It’s a pretty searing warning.

Yeah. I mean, talking about regulations and administrative law might put some people to sleep, but this is a really big deal, Michael. And as if those two cases were not a substantial enough attack on the federal government’s regulatory authority, the court also issues a third 6-3 decision undoing one of the main ways that regulators file enforcement actions against people who they say have violated the law.

They don’t always go to court. Sometimes, they go to administrative tribunals within the agency. The court says, no, that’s no good. Only courts can adjudicate these matters. So it’s just another instance of the court being consistently hostile to the administrative state.

Adam, all three of these decisions might sound pretty dangerous if you have a lot of confidence in the federal government and in the judgments of regulators and bureaucrats to interpret things. But if you’re one of the many Americans who doesn’t have a whole lot of faith in the federal government, I have to imagine all of these rulings might seem pretty constructive.

That’s an excellent point. Lots of people are skeptical of regulators, are skeptical of what they would call the deep state, of unelected bureaucrats, of even the idea of expertise. And so for those people, this is a step in the right direction. It’s taking power away from bureaucrats and handing it to what we would hope are independent, fair-minded judges.

What does seem clear, Adam, is that even though this episode was supposed to be about the rest of the Supreme Court’s rulings this year, the less sexy-sounding decisions than Trump and immunity and how much power and protection all future presidents have, the rulings that you’re describing around the government’s administrative power, they seem like they’re going to have the greatest long-term impact on how our government functions, and in a sense, what our society looks like.

Well, the biggest case of the term is obviously the Trump immunity case. That’s a decision for the ages. But close behind these decisions, reshaping the administrative state and vindicating a long-held goal of the conservative legal movement going back to the Reagan administration, that the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, has been pushing for decades, and really unraveling a conception of what the federal government does that’s been in place since the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal.

So as much as we’ve been talking about other cases where the court was tentative, surprising, nuanced in the biggest cases of the term, all delivered by six to three votes, all controlled by the conservative supermajority, the court was not nuanced. It was straightforward, and it reshaped American government.

In the end, a hard right court is going to, no matter how much it might deviate, operate like a hard right court.

Yes, Michael. It’s possible to look at the balance of the decisions and draw all kinds of complicated conclusions about the court. But when you look at the biggest cases, the picture you see is a conservative court moving the law to the right.

Well, Adam, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Thank you, Michael.

Here’s what else you need to know today. “The Times” reports that four senior Democratic house members have told colleagues that President Biden must step aside as the party’s nominee over fears that he is no longer capable of winning. They include the top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Veterans Affairs Committee.

Those top Democrats joined five rank and file House Democrats who have publicly called for Biden to step down. The latest of those was representative Angie Craig of Minnesota, who represents a swing district in the state. In a statement, Craig said that after watching Biden in the first debate, quote, “I do not believe that the president can effectively campaign and win against Donald Trump.” Senate Democrats remain largely quiet on the question of Biden’s future.

Now, you probably heard, I had a little debate last week. I can’t say it was my best performance.

In several appearances over the weekend, Biden acknowledged the growing skepticism of his candidacy —

Well, ever since then, there’s been a lot of speculation. What’s Joe going to do?

— but emphatically rejected the calls to step aside.

Well, let me say this clearly as I can. I’m staying in the race.

And in a surprise electoral upset, France’s political left was projected to win the largest number of seats in the National Assembly after the latest round of voting. The anti-immigrant far right had been expected to make history by winning the most seats, but a last-minute scramble by left wing parties averted that result.

Today’s episode was produced by Rikki Novetsky, Shannon Lin, and Rob Szypko. It was edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow. Contains original music by Dan Powell and Sophia Lanman, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

• July 9, 2024   •   27:33 The Era of Killer Robots Is Here
• July 8, 2024   •   26:17 The Supreme Court Is Not Done Remaking America
• July 5, 2024   •   26:50 How Bad Is Drinking for You, Really?
• July 4, 2024   •   26:12 Biden’s Slipping Support
• July 3, 2024   •   32:01 The American Journalist on Trial in Russia
• July 2, 2024   •   27:55 Trump Wins Broad Immunity
• July 1, 2024   •   33:39 Will Biden Withdraw?
• June 28, 2024   •   36:42 A Brutal Debate for Biden
• June 27, 2024   •   27:49 The Doping Scandal Rocking the Upcoming Olympics
• June 26, 2024   •   23:27 France’s Far Right at the Gates of Power
• June 25, 2024   •   31:26 The Plan to Defeat Critics of Israel in Congress
• June 24, 2024   •   28:44 The Army of Poets and Students Fighting a Forgotten War

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Adam Liptak

Produced by Rikki Novetsky ,  Shannon M. Lin and Rob Szypko

Edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow

Original music by Dan Powell and Sophia Lanman

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

When the Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week, much of the focus was on the ruling that gave former President Donald J. Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. But another set of rulings that generated less attention could have just as big an impact on American government and society.

Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, explains.

On today’s episode

Adam Liptak , who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments.

Background reading

In a volatile term, a fractured Supreme Court remade America .

Here’s a guide to the major Supreme Court decisions in 2024 .

In video: How a fractured Supreme Court ruled this term .

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak

Advertisement

Be Prepared with our Pre-Program to the Digital Start.up! Germany tour 2021.

Learn more about the vibrant Rhine-Ruhr Region and how you can successfully get in touch with companies and potential partners during the tour and beyond.

Challenging

• The Grand Fina l
• Startup Pool 2024
• Alumni 2017-2019
• Alumni 2021
• Alumni 2022
• Review Webinars 2022

Join our GRAND FINAL live stream!

Within our #CHALLENGING phase, we selected among 37 startups from 37 different countries the 16 best startups from all around the world. These 16 winning startups are now finalists of THE GRAND FINAL and have to compete against each other in this exciting pitch competition. The Grand Final takes place in Dusseldorf on April 23 and will be streamed live.

Are you curious about our finalists and the program?