Declaratory Judgment is a civil court action.
Federal Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934,
U.S.C. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/2201.html
Creation of a remedy (a) in a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ... any court of the United States, upon filing of an appropriate pleadings, may have declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.
Maine Declaratory Judgment Act
Title 14 M.R.S.A. §5953. Scope http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/14/title14sec5953.html\
Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect. Such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.
Title 14 M.R.S.A. §5954. Construction and validity of statutes
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/14/title14sec5954.html
Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.
Wyoming Declaratory Judgment Act
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/Title1/T1CH37.htm
W.S. 1-37-103. Right of interested party to have determination made. Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by the Wyoming constitution or by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument determined and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations.
=======================
“The device of the declaratory judgment is an honored one. Its use in the federal system is restricted to "cases" or "controversies" within the meaning of Article III. The question must be "appropriate for judicial determination," not hypothetical, abstract, academic or moot. . It must touch "the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests." Id., 240-241. It must be ‘real and substantial’ and admit of ‘specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character.’" Id., 241” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 510 (1961) > Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240 -41 (1937).
A plaintiff who challenges a statute must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute's operation or enforcement. Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) > O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974).
But "[o]ne does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief. If the injury is certainly impending that is enough. Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) >[262 U.S. 553, 593]
Making it a “crime” ….. is “intrusive regulation” …..“the usual judicial deference to the legislature is inappropriate.” Moore v. East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1971)
The physician appellants, therefore, assert a sufficiently direct threat of personal detriment. They should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 62 (1976) >Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973).
When contesting the constitutionality of a criminal statute, "it is not necessary that [the plaintiff] first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge [the] statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights." Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) > [415 U.S. 452, 459]
petitioner has alleged threats of prosecution that cannot be characterized as "imaginary or speculative," In these circumstances, it is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights. Moreover, petitioner's challenge is to those specific provisions of state law which have provided the basis for threats of criminal prosecution against him. Steffel v. Thompson 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974)
When the plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he "should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief." Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) >Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973).
The physician is the one against whom these criminal statutes directly operate in the event he procures an abortion that does not meet the statutory exceptions and conditions. The physician-appellants, therefore, assert a sufficiently direct threat of personal detriment. They should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973).
[431 U.S. 494, 506] …..the Constitution is not powerless to prevent East Cleveland from prosecuting as a criminal and jailing a 63-year-old grandmother for refusing to expel from her home her now 10-year-old grandson who has lived with her and been brought up by her since his mother's death when he was less than a year old. Moore v. East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494, 506(1971)
…., it makes a crime of a grandmother's choice to live with her grandson in circumstances like those presented here. When a city undertakes such intrusive regulation of the family the usual judicial deference to the legislature is inappropriate. Moore v. East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1971)