This Virginia Company Says Donald Trump's Tariffs Make 'Rational Business Planning Impossible'
Crutchfield Corporation, a Charlottesville-based and family-owned electronics retailer, has submitted an amicus brief in support of challenges to the president’s reciprocal tariffs.
President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs have impacted $2.2 trillion worth of imported goods, including the wines and spirits sold by V.O.S. Selections and educational toys sold by Learning Resources, whose consolidated lawsuits against the tariffs will be heard by the Supreme Court next Wednesday. The family-owned Crutchfield Corporation is another American business harmed by the president's tariffs. On Friday, the company filed an amicus brief, explaining the havoc that Trump's trade policies have caused on its operations.
Bill Crutchfield founded his company in 1974 as a car stereo mail-order business operating out of his mother's basement in Charlottesville, Virginia. Despite nearly filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy the year of its founding, Crutchfield successfully pivoted from a traditional retail business to an audio equipment information company in 1975. Since then, the company has grown to over 600 employees, and last year, the consumer electronics retailer celebrated its semicentennial, but Trump's International Emergency and Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs threaten the future of this American success story.
Like many American businesses, "the only available suppliers and vendors" for many of Cruthfield's products "are overseas," according to the company's brief. China alone accounts for 60 percent of Crutchfield's products, making the 145 percent tariff on Chinese imports threatened in April particularly galling. Although this triple-digit duty was lowered to 55 percent in June, the initial tariff rate and the trade war that has escalated since have impacted Crutchfield, which makes "decisions to cancel or scale back purchase orders from overseas vendors…long before retailers know if their worst fears are realized."
Crutchfield explains that "tariffs imposed today, and the threat of additional tariffs imposed tomorrow, matter." If the president has "unprecedented, unilateral, and unreviewable authority to set tariffs…then Crutchfield cannot plan for the short term [or] the long run because it cannot possibly predict what the household electronics it sells will cost." Compounding the unseen cost of unrealized revenue, Trump's tariffs could amount to a $200 billion annual tax on small businesses, according to the Chamber of Commerce.
Crutchfield asserts that the plain language of IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to levy tariffs at all. Indeed, the text of IEEPA does not mention "tariff" or any of its synonyms once, which goes a long way to explain why "no other President has claimed…that [IEEPA] conferred authority on the President to set tariffs." If the law did, it would violate the major questions and the nondelegation doctrines by implicitly granting congressional powers to the president without any limiting principle.
The company also dismisses the emergency declared by the administration to invoke IEEPA: the "large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits [that] constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States," which the U.S. has had for decades. The firm says that the real threat is the president's large and variable tariffs, which make "rational business planning impossible."
Crutchfield isn't the only business that opposes Trump's reciprocal tariffs. On Friday, We Pay the Tariffs, a coalition of over 700 businesses, filed an amicus curiae brief opposing the president's IEEPA tariffs. The coalition claims the tariffs pose "an existential threat to [the] survival" of many small businesses, and were "imposed without legal authority and with no public participation, comment, or even sufficient notice." The Supreme Court's ruling in V.O.S. Selection and Learning Resources will determine whether the survival of small businesses like Crutchfield may be subject to the whim of the president without explicit congressional approval.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
If you like your slave labor made electronics, you should be able to keep your slave labor made electronics.
Once again and as usual-
Not irrationally disruptive to business planning:
Global lockdowns, vaccine mandates, Russian collusion impeachment hoaxes, mostly peaceful demonstrations against racism, demolition of international energy pipelines, slaughter of Russians and Ukrainians, surprise attacks on music festivals causing thousands of deaths, surprise prosecutions on legal tax returns and property valuations, systematic eradication of Christian and other religious minorities around the world, the systematic upending of energy infrastructure down to mandating acceptable cooking appliances at the federal level.
Impossibly disruptive to business planning:
Tariffs against products of slave labor from a communist dictatorship.
True Americans buy Zenith or RCA
MAGA trolls probably think those businesses still exist.
My guess is this guy only survived supply disruption during covid with PPP loans and forgiveness, when supply chains got shut down. Seems to have no clue as to supply chain risk or how to negotiate with suppliers.
How deep does reason have to dive to find these people?
Crutchfield asserts that the plain language of IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to levy tariffs at all.
The guy has a law degree too? Is it from overseas?
WindyCityStereoInstaller
And ... your law degree is from ...?
What does negotiating with suppliers have to do with tariffs ? The suppliers have a base cost; what is varying is the tariff burden. Trump is pissed at Canada ... 50% tariff increase ! Tomorrow it might be an additional 100% tariff increase because he stubbed his toe. How do you plan around what is normally an overhead item, as you can't negotiate tariffs, that go up or down willy-nilly ? The supplier likely hasn't changed their base price at all, it is the tariff that is mercurial.
I get youre fucking ignorant on all topics. You've been given. Links showing pass through estimates of tariffs.
The fact you think foreign suppliers dont pay the majority shows your chosen ignorance.
I can tell you've never taken an economics course nor been in any significant position in a business
The fact that you don't understand that tariffs are domestic taxes, and that you think foreign producers can absorb 50% tariffs, shows how utterly ignorant you are.
I know, right? Why didn't the author of this article find the sources that would confirm Jesse's biases?
please enlighten us all on the American made consumer electronics brands he should be selling
That is a very well written amicus brief. I hope the SCOTUS Republicans read it.
Will you read the opinion when they issue it? Because you haven't for any case you've been wrong on. The likelihood you read this is zero.
Every second of every day somebody's ox is getting gored.
And once all the oxen are dead we'll finally be able to return all the ranch and farmland to nature.
My dude, you've had 8 years to plan on tariffs.
Democrats will never repeal them, they are here to stay.
Take a fucking risk on domestic.
this is a consumer electronics retailer ... there haven't been any American made consumer electronics brands to sell for 20 years
That is "The problem". Not a solution.
A production-less entity cannot sustain itself.
'Rational Business Planning Impossible'
I know ... because it's so irrational and Impossible to buy domestically with all the [D]emon-rats [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism].
It's about time the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] started enjoying at least a small-fraction of their fruits.
newsflash ... whatever electronic device you are using to post this comment ... it was not made in the USA
Of course it isn't. Why would anyone pay 80% taxes when they can elect to buy at 0% and even get subsidized shipping to boot?
That is "The problem". Not a solution.
A production-less entity cannot sustain itself.
"will determine whether the survival of small businesses like Crutchfield may be subject to the whim of the president without explicit congressional approval."
Did these companies not get the news that congress has already approved of them twice now?
How about they start working at REPEALING or getting SCOTUS to rule the IEEPA UN-Constitutional as it so obviously is.
The Supreme Court will overturn Trump's random "emergency" tariffs. Businesses need to hold on a little longer, and the tariff situation will normalize.
Was this brief written by a retarded child? The article on it sure was.
The first half of the brief is sobbing. "imports from China (which supplies nearly 60% of Crutchfield’s products)" OVER HALF! Oh woe is me, I modeled my business on dependency on foreign goods! What would his argument be if, say China suffered a massive earthquake that annihilated its ports. What would his argument be if China declared war (or forced us into a corner that required us to declare war) and cut off all its trade completely? "But my stupid business model!" would have no claim whatsoever.
The second half actually used the line "With great power comes great responsibility." This is next-level theater camp.
If Congress does not authorize such tariffs, the President cannot impose them just because he believes they are necessary or appropriate.
Except that they said he could. Oops.
Because they didn't want to do the difficult and unpopular job of legislating. Because they could crow about trade policy without actually getting their hands dirty. Take all the credit when it works, deflect all the blame when it doesn't.
SCOTUS isn't going to bail them out. The diversity hires will probably whine, "omg poor Crutchfield, we have to bail them out of their own stupidity," but the majority decision will be Congress hoisted themselves by their own petard.