Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/74

 whether universities have “willfully and knowingly failed to correct” a professor’s promotion of any of the eight concepts. The Inspector General reports its findings to the Board of Governors, see Regulation 10.005(4)(a), which then decides whether the university ultimately violated Regulation 10.005(2)(a), thus triggering a loss in performance funding.

In short, the Inspector General serves only an investigative function. She makes no decision regarding the availability of the performance funding that encourages universities to bar the promotion of any of the eight concepts. Favorable inferences may sustain Professor Novoa’s theory at the more forgiving motion-to-dismiss stage. But here, the Inspector General is only loosely connected to Professor Novoa’s injuries. Without further factual support, the connection between Professor Novoa’s injury and the Inspector General is too speculative to show a substantial likelihood of redressability at the preliminary injunction stage. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (“[I]t must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” (quoting ''Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org.'', 426 U.S. 26, 38, 42 (1976))). Professor Novoa, thus, lacks standing for a