Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/85

 *Professor Sandoval has standing to challenge the IFA’s “objective instruction” provision with respect to the third and eighth concepts against the members of the Board of Governors in their official capacities; Conversely, Professor Plaintiffs have not demonstrated standing for a preliminary injunction challenging the IFA’s prohibitions concerning those concepts that will not affect their classroom instruction.
 * Professor Almond 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 Novoa has standing to challenge the IFA’s “objective instruction” provision with respect to the first, second, third, fifth, and seventh concepts against the members of the Board of Governors in their official capacities and the members of the University of South Florida’s Board of Trustees in their official capacities.

Having established that Plaintiffs—save Dr. Dunn and Ms. Dauphin—have standing for purposes of a preliminary injunction, this Court considers the merits of their claims, starting with their First Amendment claims.