Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/46

 enforcement is no less cognizable a pre-enforcement injury than self-censorship. To find otherwise would further encourage would-be plaintiffs to self-censor lest they strip themselves of standing. This would undermine the point of permitting pre-enforcement challenges under the First Amendment.

Both Plaintiffs and Defendants misconstrue the requirements for standing here. The Pernell Plaintiffs insist that, because they bring a facial challenge to the IFA, they have standing to challenge the entire act. ECF No. 55 at 16–17, in Case No: 4:22cv304-MW/MAF. It is well established, however, that even for facial challenges, plaintiffs must show an injury under each provision of the challenged statute. See Harrell, 608 F.3d at 1254. Even accepting that they must show a specific injury, the Pernell Plaintiffs misunderstand the standard for a self-censorship injury. Their arguments and declarations repeat the notion that some professors are afraid even to discuss the eight concepts in class lest they violate the IFA. See, e.g., ECF No. 55 at 17, in Case No: 4:22cv304-MW/MAF; ECF No. 13-3