Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/83

 and (3) there is at least a minimal probability that the rules will be enforced if they are violated. See Harrell, 608 F.3d at 1254 (cleaned up).

The first and third elements of both tests overlap, and this Court’s analysis regarding the Professor Plaintiffs’ First Amendment injury applies with equal force to their vagueness injury. The difference comes with an additional requirement for an injury due to a prohibition’s alleged vagueness—namely, that the challenged prohibition must also be arguably vague as it applies to the plaintiff. See id.

The Professor Plaintiffs satisfy these requirements. First, their proposed speech is arguably covered by one or more of the eight concepts in section 1000.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2022). Second, the so-called savings clause in section 1000.05(4)(b), Florida Statutes (202222022 [sic]), which applies to any instruction or training invoking the eight concepts, is arguably vague. Accordingly, the Professor Plaintiffs have demonstrated an injury with respect to their vagueness claim.

The Professor Plaintiffs must also show that their injury resulting from the savings clause’s vagueness is fairly traceable to, and redressable by, an order enjoining Defendants from enforcing the IFA. For the same reasons that these Plaintiffs have demonstrated traceability and redressability as to their First Amendment claims, they have also satisfied these requirements as to their vagueness claims. Accordingly, this Court finds that the injuries of Professor Plaintiffs (save