the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity.” Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 612, 93 S.Ct. 2908. Thus, in an appro priate First Amendment overbreadth claim, a plaintiff whose conduct is regulated by a rule of law is permitted to challenge- the constitutionality of that particular rule of law regardless of the fact that a more circumscribed version of that rule of law could be applied in a constitutional fashion to prohibit the plaintiffs conduct. Because overbreadth creates an exception only to the prudential standing inquiry, the Supreme Court has made clear that the injury in fact requirement still applies to overbreadth claims under the First Amendment. Am. Booksellers Ass’n, 484 U.S. at 392-93, 108 S.Ct. 636 (<HOLDING>); see also Sec’y of State of Maryland v. Joseph
holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that to bring a cause of action in federal court requires that plaintiffs establish at an irreducible minimum an injury in fact that is there must be some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that to bring a  1983 cause of action there must be some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action and that a preenforcement suit is justified where there exists a wellfounded fear of enforcement that would infringe upon the exercise of first amendment rights