Modern firms acknowledge the advantages in acting ethically. For some time, the goal of shareholder profit maximization has shared the stage with objectives that benefit a broader group of stakeholders. Such benefits can be attractive to not only employees and consumers, but increasingly to investors as well. Whether it is called corporate social responsibility, sustainability, or ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), firms now routinely plan and report such ethical efforts.

However, the notion of the ethical firm cannot escape the business operation itself. Some firms present ethical quandaries by the very nature of the products they sell or the stakeholders they engage. If a business creates unavoidable harm to society, ethical strategies may only go so far to ameliorate the overall impact. So-called “controversial” industries or “sin stocks” include traditional morally problematic endeavors like tobacco, alcohol, and gambling but may also include industries with an evolving assessment of harm such as fossil fuel production or mining. Arguably, ethical approaches are even more important here, as safer or more responsible strategies can help legitimize the very existence of such firms.

In this Article, we consider an emerging controversial industry as a context for increasing firm legitimacy: cannabis “edibles.” For years, cannabis products have existed at the margins of the legal marketplace but are now poised to go mainstream. In particular, cannabis edibles allow for easy and discrete access to an enjoyable experience and have the potential to provide significant medical benefits. But edibles also create extremely serious harm, particularly to vulnerable populations like children. This Article considers the unique issues presented by edibles as the largest growing product in the emerging cannabis market and proposes a path forward for an ethical firm to mitigate (some of) its sins. Our proposal envisions an important role for firms and regulators and suggests that firms work within regulation as well as independently.

This Article examines the enduring legacy of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), a Supreme Court decision that interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to exclude Native Americans from birthright citizenship. By relegating Native citizenship status to a statutory privilege rather than a constitutional right, Elk created a framework that has since been weaponized to challenge birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. This Article demonstrates how Elk’s flawed reasoning—particularly its narrow reading of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—continues to shape legal and political efforts to erode the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees.

Drawing on Justice Harlan’s dissent in Elk, the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the text of the Citizenship Clause, this Article argues that Elk was wrongly decided and that the jurisdictional requirement was never intended as a tool for exclusion. The Reconstruction Framers designed the Citizenship Clause to ensure equal citizenship for all persons born on U.S. soil, regardless of ancestry or parental status. Justice Harlan’s dissent provides a blueprint for this inclusive reading, rejecting the notion that allegiance at birth determines jurisdiction.

This Article calls for the explicit repudiation of Elk and its continued misuse in modern birthright citizenship debates. The Fourteenth Amendment’s promise is clear: for anyone born in the United States who subjects themselves to its jurisdiction, birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, not a congressional privilege.

Juvenile sex offender registration was never a natural fit for the youth justice system, but in the digital age, it has become deeply harmful. What began as a paper-based precaution has evolved into a sprawling digital regime that permanently brands adolescents at the most formative stage of life. This Article examines how technological change has turned registration into a publicly searchable network of stigma—amplified by data aggregators, search engines, neighborhood apps, and real estate platforms—that makes youthful misbehavior both permanent and inescapable.

Drawing on insights from developmental neuroscience and criminology, the Article explains why adolescent sexual misconduct is often impulsive, peer-driven, and rarely predictive of future offending. Yet federal mandates like the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) continue to impose offense-based registration on youth as young as fourteen, ignoring evidence about adolescent development and undermining the juvenile justice system’s rehabilitative aims.

The modern registry’s reach imposes novel harms that traditional legal frameworks have not fully addressed. Public access fuels ongoing exclusion, identity foreclosure, and algorithmic discrimination, locking youth into stigmatized identities and exacerbating racial and socioeconomic disparities. These harms ripple outward to destabilize families and communities.

Empirical research confirms that juvenile sexual recidivism is rare and that registration fails to improve public safety. Instead, it misallocates resources and inflicts long-term damage. This Article urges a rethinking of juvenile registration policies, calling for reforms grounded in developmental science, technological awareness, and evidence-based alternatives such as confidential monitoring, risk-based assessments, and therapeutic intervention.

When it comes to submitting tax returns and paying taxes, most taxpayers understand the nature of their civic duties and do so dutifully, if not willingly. However, many taxpayers fail to grasp why the IRS has such an elongated time period—namely, three years—to audit their tax returns and propose an assessment. Indeed, when the IRS exercises its oversight authority, records may no longer be available, and memories may be dulled.

Since the original institution of the three-year tax assessment limitations period nearly a century ago, tremendous technological strides have been made. Indeed, over ninety percent of income tax returns are currently electronically submitted. The IRS can readily employ AI and other detection modes to identify those tax returns requiring an audit. Given such technological advancements, Congress should shorten the general statute of limitations period to two years. Instituting this reform would yield many salutary benefits to the tax system at little or no revenue cost.