Do journalists and news organizations have standing to bring a void-for-vagueness due process challenge?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Texas Government Code Chapter 423 prohibits capturing with a drone any “image of an individual or privately owned real property” with the intent to “conduct surveillance” and bars publication of such images. The law does not define “surveillance” but, according to Respondents and dictionary definitions, it may include newsgathering. Chapter 423 exempts from its content-based restrictions twenty-one favored speakers and uses, but does not exempt journalists. The Fifth Circuit found that the risk of criminal prosecution under Chapter 423 is demonstrably chilling Petitioners’ newsgathering and reporting, and that this injury established their Article III standing for a facial First Amendment challenge. It found this same injury insufficient for standing to pursue a voidfor-vagueness due process claim because authorities had not prosecuted or arrested a journalist. On the merits of the First Amendment claim, the Fifth Circuit declined to apply strict scrutiny to the law’s contentand speaker-based prohibitions and held that Chapter 423 survives intermediate scrutiny without addressing its vagueness. The questions presented are: 1. Do journalists and news organizations whose First Amendment rights are chilled by an ambiguous criminal law have standing to bring a facial void-forvagueness due process challenge? 2. What level of scrutiny applies to a law using contentand speaker-based distinctions to prohibit taking and publishing certain drone images?