Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/108

 success on the merits as to their free speech claims. And because Mr. Rechek’s right-to-receive information claim is coextensive with Professor Novoa’s free speech claim (as discussed supra), this Court concludes that Mr. Rechek has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as to his right-to-receive-information claim.

Next, this Court considers Plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge.

Even if the IFA did not violate the First Amendment for the reasons set out above, Plaintiffs argue, the IFA is impermissibly vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This Court agrees for the reasons set out below.

Vagueness, an outgrowth of the Due Process Clause, reflects the “fundamental principle in our legal system … that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.” FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012). A law can be impermissibly vague for two distinct reasons. Hill, 530 U.S. at 732. “First, if it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits. Second, if it authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Id. (citing Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56–57 (1999)). And while vagueness descends from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, a vague law