This is from page 75 of the Judge Vinson ruling on Obamacare. It is the part that deals with the injunction after he deems the whole law unconstitutional. What Does it Mean? Oh, and I messed up the poll. Replace "and" with "an". A) No Injunction is Necessary Because a Ruling of "Unconstitutional" is by Default and Injunction. B) No Injunction is Granted and Obama May Continue to Implement the Unconstitutional Law C) Dont Know D) Other Page 75. Vinson opinion (5) InjunctionThe last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.Injunctive relief is an extraordinary [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and drastic remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption that officials of theExecutive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. See Comm. onJudiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985) (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 declaredby the court) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief isnot necessary.