Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/82

 preliminary injunctive relief for his First Amendment claim against these Defendants. Ms. Dauphin, on the other hand, lacks standing for purposes of her preliminary injunction motion and, thus, is not entitled to such relief.

Next, this Court addresses the Professor Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue preliminary injunctive relief with respect to their vagueness challenge. The standing analysis here is similar to the analysis for a pre-enforcement free speech claim, because the claimed injury is self-censorship or speaking with the risk of discipline. For a First Amendment claim, a plaintiff must show (1) “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest,” (2) that is “proscribed by a statute,” and (3) that “there exists a credible threat of prosecution[.]” Wollschlaeger, 848 F.3d at 1304 (quoting Driehaus, 573 U.S. at 159). For a vagueness claim that allegedly chills speech, a plaintiff must show that (1) he seriously wishes to speak; (2) such speech would arguably be affected by the challenged prohibition, but the rules are at least arguably vague as they apply to him;