Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/69

 or compelling belief in viewpoints in support of race or sex consciousness as part of their course instruction—arguably runs afoul of the IFA’s prohibitions. These professors provide “instruction” as defined by section 1000.05(4)’s implementing regulation, see ECF No. 1-2 at 2–3, in Case No: 4:22cv324-MW/MAF. Regulation 10.005(2)(a)’s mandate that each Florida university implement a bar on promoting or compelling belief in the IFA’s concepts—combined with the hefty penalties facing the university to ensure enforcement—imposes a credible threat of enforcement on the Professor Plaintiffs.

For these reasons, this Court concludes that all Professor Plaintiffs, save Dr. Dunn, have demonstrated an injury in fact at the preliminary-injunction stage.

Next, this Court will address whether the Professor Plaintiffs have demonstrated that their injuries are fairly traceable to Defendants. Traceability requires a showing that Plaintiffs’ “injuries are connected with” Defendants’ conduct. ''Wilding v. DNC Servs. Corp., 941 F.3d 1116, 1125 (11th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up) (quoting Trump v. Hawaii'', 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2416 (2018)). In other words, the Professor Plaintiffs must show that their injury is “fairly traceable to the challenged