Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/84

 Dr. Dunn in Pernell) both are fairly traceable to Defendants (save the Boards of Trustees in Pernell and the Inspector General in Novoa) and would be substantially redressed by enjoining them from enforcing the challenged statute.

In sum, this Court finds that the Professor Plaintiffs (save Dr. Dunn in Pernell) have standing to bring their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness challenge against Defendants (save the Boards of Trustees in Pernell and the Inspector General in Novoa) as follows:
 * Professor Pernell has standing to challenge the IFA’s “objective instruction” provision with respect to the third and fourth concepts against the members of the Board of Governors in their official capacities;
 * Professor Dorsey has standing to challenge the IFA’s “objective instruction” provision with respect to the third, fourth, and eighth concepts against the members of the Board of Governors in their official capacities;
 * Professor Austin has standing to challenge the IFA’s “objective instruction” provision with respect to the third, fourth, sixth, and eighth concepts against the members of the Board of Governors in their official capacities;
 * Professor Park has standing to challenge the IFA’s “objective instruction” provision with respect to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth concepts against the members of the Board of Governors in their official capacities;