Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/76

 it satisfied the “same test that applies in determining whether [it] is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity”). Sovereign immunity bars even prospective injunctive relief when the named defendant is a state entity. Stevens v. Gay, 864 F.2d 113, 115 (11th Cir. 1989) (citing ''Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984)). Accordingly, the Pernell Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of success in proving that an injunction against the Boards of Trustees would redress their injuries because such an injunction is likely barred by sovereign immunity. The Pernell'' Plaintiffs’Plaintiffs [sic] lack standing to seek a preliminary injunction against their respective universities’ Board of Trustees.

Now, back to redressability for the properly named parties. Because the FEEA still permits individual lawsuits for discrimination, an injunction directed at the properly named Defendants would not provide total redress for Plaintiffs. But redress need not be total to satisfy Article III, Reeves v. Comm’r, 23 F.4th 1308, 1318 (11th Cir. 2022), and enjoining these Defendants will provide at least partial redress. The remaining Professor Plaintiffs, thus, have demonstrated that the requested injunction would redress their asserted injuries.