Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/43

 Governors; and the University of South Florida Board of Trustees and its members in their official capacities. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 34–47, in Case No.: 4:22cv304-MW/MAF. They assert the Defendants all play a role in enforcing the State of Florida’s prohibition on certain viewpoints in college classrooms, which, they allege, violates their constitutional rights.

Even if the parties treat standing as an afterthought, this Court has an independent obligation to ensure that standing, as “perhaps the most important” jurisdictional doctrine, is established. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984)). Standing “is not dispensed in gross.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358 n.6 (1996). “ ‘[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press’ and ‘for each form of relief’ ” that is sought. ''Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008) (quoting DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno'', 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006)). Here, this means that this Court must address Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue an injunction for both their First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims.