Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/44

 In addition to ensuring that they have standing to pursue each claim, Plaintiffs must also demonstrate standing for each provision of the statute they challenge. CAMP Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257, 1271–72 (11th Cir. 2006). Put another way, Plaintiffs must demonstrate how their speech arguably implicates each way the IFA’s prohibition could be violated. This provision-by-provision analysis applies to both facial and as-applied challenges. In other words, even if plaintiffs bring a facial challenge to a statute, they must still show a personal injury in fact under each provision of the challenged statute. Id.

Both the Novoa and Pernell Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of section 1000.05(4), Florida Statutes (2022), and Regulation 10.005, claiming these laws impermissibly discriminate based on viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment and are void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment. This Court will address Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue an injunction for both claims.

Before going through Plaintiffs’ individual submissions, this Court will clarify what they must show to demonstrate an injury. When First Amendment rights are involved, courts apply the injury-in-fact requirement most loosely, “lest free speech be chilled even before the law or regulation is enforced.” Harrell v. Fla. Bar, 608