Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/36

 defendant and that (3) can likely be redressed by a favorable ruling. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61. And “where a plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction, the district court … should normally evaluate standing ‘under the heightened standard for evaluating a motion for summary judgment.’ ” ''Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health, 900 F.3d 250, 255 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack'', 808 F.3d 905, 912 (D.C. Cir. 2015)); see also Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401, 404 (2d Cir. 2011). Thus, “a plaintiff cannot ‘rest on such mere allegations [as would be appropriate at the pleading stage], but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts, which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true.’ ” Cacchillo, 638 F.3d at 404 (some alteration in original) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).

Before applying the test for standing to Plaintiffs’ claims, this Court starts with a brief description of the facts and evidence before it.

Starting with Pernell, Plaintiff LeRoy Pernell is a Professor of Law at Florida A&M University College of Law. ECF No. 13-1 ¶¶ 3–4, in Case No.: 4:22cv304MW/MAF (Pernell Declaration). Professor Pernell has over forty years of experience in higher education and teaches primarily in the areas of criminal procedure, torts, juvenile law, and race and the law. Id. ¶ 4. He expects to teach a class in the 2023 spring semester that focuses on the role of race in criminal