With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". duty to execute the laws is not enough by itself to make that official a proper party in a suit challenging a state statute. See, e.g., 1st Westco Corp. v. School Dist., 6 F.3d 108, 113 (3d Cir.1993) (“General authority to enforce the laws of the state is not sufficient to make government officials the proper parties to litigation challenging the law.”) (citing Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1208 (3d Cir.1988)); Shell Oil Co. v. Noel, 608 F.2d 208, 211 (1st Cir.1979) (“The mere fact that a governor is under a general duty to enforce state laws does not make him a proper defendant in every action attacking the constitutionality of a state statute.”); see also Gras v. Stevens, 415 F.Supp. 1148, 1151-52 (S.D.N.Y.1976); cf. Mendez v. Heller, 530 F.2d 457, 460 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims with respect

A: holding that the state attorney generals duty to support the constitutionality of challenged state statutes and his duty to defend actions in which the state is interested do not constitute enforcement of the statute in question
B: holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend
C: recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state
D: holding that the state police is a state agency
A.