Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/48

 without pleading every possible application,” they need not show a personal injury under each of the IFA’s eight concepts. See id. at 18–19.

However, the Eleventh Circuit squarely rejected this argument when it comes to showing an injury for purposes of Article III standing. “The overbreadth doctrine does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden to prove constitutional standing, which requires that ‘the plaintiff himself has suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action.’ ” CAMP, 451 F.3d at 1270 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)). Like the Pernell Plaintiffs, the Novoa Plaintiffs cannot circumvent binding precedent that requires this Court to examine the injury shown by each plaintiff for each challenged statutory provision.

Not to be excluded, Defendants exaggerate the required showing for an actual injury. Defendants insist that a Professor Plaintiff’s intended promotion or compulsion to believe one or more of the eight concepts must be a near-perfect match for the IFA’s eight concepts. See ECF No. 51-1 at 18–19, in Case No: 4:22cv304-MW/MAF; ECF No. 33-1 at 9, in Case No: 4:22cv324-MW/MAF. For example, in Pernell, Defendants contend that none of the Plaintiffs promote or compel belief in the third concept because they do not “clearly state an intention to teach that ‘[a] person’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.’ ” ECF No.