Case 4:22-cv-00324-MW-MAF Document 44 Filed 11/17/22 Page 125 of 139
(2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting)). “And such objective discussion, if attainable, is even more difficult with respect to controversial matters like the eight prohibited concepts here, where many, including Defendants, question their legitimacy.” Id.
Lacking explicit standards to circumscribe enforcement of “objectivity,” Defendants can weaponize this term to further discredit the eight concepts in the “marketplace of ideas,” which now permits endorsement of only one side of the debate. Accordingly, because this “objectivity” savings clause commands the entire statute, the IFA is impermissibly vague on its face in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1]
E
Finally, this Court considers the Novoa Plaintiffs’ overbreadth claim.[2] While laws that fail to clearly define their prohibitions are void for vagueness, “[a] clear and precise enactment may nevertheless be ‘overbroad’ if in its reach it prohibits
- ↑ This Court need not confront severability because the unconstitutionally vague “objectivity” savings clause, which governs both the challenged statute and regulation, renders the provisions as a whole unconstitutionally vague. Thus, even if the IFA’s amendments to the FEEA did not constitute an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction on speech and some of the eight concepts were not vague, the entire provision would still be unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Accordingly, the Pernell Plaintiffs have standing to enjoin the members of the Board of Governors from enforcing the “objectivity” savings clause with respect to all eight concepts. The Novoa Plaintiffs are entitled to a more limited injunction against the members of the Board of Governors and the members of the USF Board of Trustees with respect to the concepts they have standing to challenge and which implicate the “objectivity” savings clause.
- ↑ The Pernell Plaintiffs have not raised an overbreadth claim. Thus, this Court’s analysis is limited to the briefing in the Novoa case.
125
