236 overinclusive law that is at issue here. Accordingly, this case does not present the type of conflict between speech rights and other governmental interests that can be used to justify a law that restricts political speech. Although the plaintiffs have sought both declaratory and injunctive relief, I have no reason to believe that the Secretary will fail to respect this Court’s ruling that the new law is unconstitutional on its face. Accordingly, I grant the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief but determine that injunctive relief is not necessary at the present time.. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 711, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) (injunctive relief is not required if the plaintiffs’ interests will be protected by a declaratory judgment). The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 18) is granted to the extent that it seeks a judgment for declaratory relief, and the Secretary’s corresponding motion (Doc. No. 22) is denied. The clerk shall enter judgment for the plaintiffs. SO ORDERED. Robert BLUE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DORAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Glen R. Wakeman, Robert E. Wahlman, Penko Ivanov, David Hooston, and Enrique R. Ubarri-Baragano Christopher C. Poulton, Defendants. Civil No. 14-1393 (GAG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. Signed July 22, 2015.