Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/47

 at ¶ 40, in Case No: 4:22cv304-MW/MAF. As this Court explains later, the IFA is vague and imprecise, but at least one thing is clear: mere discussion of the eight concepts, without promotion or compulsion, does not violate the IFA. See § 1000.05(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022). The Pernell Plaintiffs’ injuries are limited to the concepts that they arguably promote or compel belief in.

The Novoa Plaintiffs recognize that there could be a narrower approach to standing. See ECF No. 38 at 14–17, in Case No: 4:22cv324-MW/MAF. They cite the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in CAMP to criticize Defendants’ “cramped and narrow view of standing … .” Id. at 18. And they imply that because the “overbreadth doctrine allows [them] to demonstrate the chilling effect of the law