EarthQuaker Devices, a manufacturer of musical instruments in Akron, Ohio, uses more than 900 components from over 15 countries to make products that alter the sound of guitars, with names like “Tentacle,” “Rainbow Machine” and “Gary.”
The tariffs that President Trump imposed on nearly all trading partners have drastically increased the cost of those components. But EarthQuaker is hoping that the tariff case the Supreme Court plans to hear on Wednesday will render those taxes moot.
The company has spent hours searching for U.S. suppliers that would allow it to avoid paying the tariffs. The president, citing an emergency law, has slapped tariffs on more than 100 countries this year in an attempt to reduce the trade deficit and force more manufacturing to the United States. But EarthQuaker found that parts available domestically were 20 to 30 times the price of foreign ones. There has been no sign that tariffs will encourage suppliers to set up U.S. factories to make their goods instead, the company said.
“We have spent many hours of wasted time and energy searching for solutions which do not exist,” said Julie Robbins, EarthQuaker’s chief executive. The company paid the U.S. government more than $40,000 in tariffs this year, and sales revenue dropped by 10 percent, she said.
EarthQuaker is one of hundreds of small businesses that say they are suffering as a result of Mr. Trump’s tariffs on imports. Many of them have waded into an unfolding legal clash to make that case. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will begin considering the president’s sweeping use of emergency powers to issue tariffs. Legal experts say the case is a tossup, but it has significant implications for U.S. businesses, whose fortunes are being shaped by policy set in Washington.
Mr. Trump used the emergency authority, called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to swiftly raise and lower tariffs on dozens of trading partners. In briefings submitted to the court last week, EarthQuaker and other small businesses argued that those decisions had hammered their bottom lines, forcing some to cut prices, lay off workers or otherwise upend their plans. The argument clashed with Mr. Trump’s repeated assertions that tariffs have not harmed U.S. businesses, workers or consumers.
The president has made clear that he understands how critical this case is to his economic agenda. In a social media post on Sunday, Mr. Trump called the case “one of the most important in the History of the Country.”
“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.
Industry groups that have filed briefs with the court on behalf of businesses disagree. Sara Yood, the chief executive of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee, said her industry had grappled with both “deep uncertainty” and rising prices, which had hit especially hard in an industry where prices were already high.
Ms. Yood offered the example of diamonds, which are mined in various countries but are often cut and polished in India. Mr. Trump used emergency powers to unexpectedly impose a 50 percent tariff on Indian exports in August, which had an “enormous impact” on that trade, she said.
“Some folks have just stopped buying anything right now,” Ms. Yood said. Others have had to pay the tariff, or negotiate arrangements with suppliers, as they continued to wait for a trade deal between the United States and India that had not materialized, she said.
Aabesh De, the founder of Flora, a Tennessee-based company that makes sensors to alert plant owners that their plants need attention, said tariffs had forced his company to put off inventory purchases, research and development, purchase orders and more.
In a news conference last week organized by a coalition of small businesses called We Pay the Tariffs, which also includes EarthQuaker, Mr. De described tariffs as a “man-made existential crisis” under Mr. Trump.
Small businesses have been playing a prominent role in the Supreme Court challenge. The case’s lead plaintiffs include V.O.S. Selections, a wine importer, and Learning Resources, which manufactures educational toys in China. Many big businesses, in contrast, have been noticeably quiet about the effects of Mr. Trump’s tariffs.
Peter E. Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown’s Institute of International Economic Law and a former Biden White House official, said that tariffs were “painful for large businesses, hands down.” But, he said, “I think big companies feel more threat from retaliation than small businesses do, simply because they’re companies Trump has heard of.”
Mr. Harrell, who served as one of the counsels to congressional members on a briefing submitted in the case, said large businesses also had greater ability to adapt to tariffs by adjusting their pricing and supply chains or lobbying for exemptions. Small businesses, on the other hand, had little power to lobby and few alternatives to paying the tariffs.
“The small-business community, in addition to having less fear of retaliation, feels like we don’t have another option,” Mr. Harrell said.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Technology Association, which both represent major multinational companies, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court last week arguing that the emergency powers law does not confer the sweeping power the president has claimed.
In a statement to The New York Times, the chamber said that the brief was “consistent with our position that the challenged tariffs were imposed in excess of statutory authority and are causing irreparable harm to businesses of all sizes.” It declined to comment further.
Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics for The Times and is based in Washington. She has been a journalist for more than a decade.
Tony Romm is a reporter covering economic policy and the Trump administration for The Times, based in Washington.
The post Small Businesses Gear Up for Tariff Fight at Supreme Court appeared first on New York Times.
