Case 4:22-cv-00324-MW-MAF Document 44 Filed 11/17/22 Page 130 of 139
any training or instruction on the IFA’s eight concepts, leaving the statute and Regulation 10.005 unconstitutionally vague in all of their applications.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to facial relief on both their First Amendment viewpoint discrimination claims and their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness claims. The members of the University of South Florida Board of Trustees are prohibited from enforcing the IFA and Regulation 10.005 against their respective employees as to the concepts for which Plaintiff Novoa has standing. The members of the Board of Governors, however, are prohibited from enforcing the IFA and Regulation 10.005 against any state university. Here’s why.
Only one Plaintiff needs standing to challenge a Defendant’s enforcement of the IFA and Regulation 10.005. See Rumsfeld, 547 U.S. at 53 n.2. Each Plaintiff established standing against the members of Board of Governors and, as this Court discussed above, Plaintiffs are entitled to facial relief on both their First Amendment viewpoint discrimination and Fourteenth Amendment vagueness claims. Facial relief extends to any entity subject to the Board of Governor’s enforcement of the IFA and Regulation 10.005—in other words, all state universities. Accordingly, the members of the Board of Governors are enjoined from enforcing the challenged provisions with respect to all state universities for each concept that the individual Plaintiffs have standing to challenge. As set out in detail in this Court’s discussion on standing, the Pernell Plaintiffs have standing to challenge all eight concepts on
130
