However, I will note one thing: Vinson actually said that an injunction should not be necessary -- not that a declaratory judgment is functionally equivalent to an injunction.
But, the AG is a politician. I would expect him to exaggerate a bit.
Whoops, my bad. Vinson did actually say that.
He was citing "Committee on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008)".
He also added: "declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court" (Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 D.C. Cir. 1985)
But, here's the problem: he is assuming that the Obama administration will obey the law. The same administration has been cited for contempt for disobeying an injunction against the moratorium on offshore drilling, so I don't have any confidence they will "honor" a declaratory judgment.
And from what I can find, despite the presumption of abiding by the declaration, there doesn't appear to be any penalties for doing so. I'll check those decisions and see if there is.