Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/52

 analysis, plaintiffs must demonstrate an injury for each challenged provision by showing how their activities arguably implicate each way the challenged statute could be violated.

This Court’s reading of CAMP is confirmed by the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Harrell. In that case, the Eleventh Circuit applied CAMP’s meticulous provision-by-provision analysis to an attorney’s challenge to nine Florida Bar provisions regulating attorney advertising on vagueness and First Amendment grounds. Harrell, 608 F.3d at 1253. For his First Amendment claims, the Eleventh Circuit found that the attorney had standing to challenge all nine of the challenged advertising provisions. While the exact showing for each provision was not specified, the Eleventh Circuit found that the attorney had shown “how the challenged rules seem to prohibit the ads he wishes to run … .” Id. at 1260 n.7. Again, despite the similarity of the statutory provisions under the umbrella of regulating attorney advertising, the attorney still had to show an injury for each way the challenged provisions could be violated.

In sum, the provision-by-provision analysis set out in CAMP and Harrell requires plaintiffs to demonstrate an injury by showing how their activities arguably implicate each way a challenged statute could be violated. In CAMP, this meant that