With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Std. Oil Co., 522 F.3d at 143 (citing Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973)). Christian Action Network has not come close to satisfying its burden to show that the State’s disciplinary action here cannot succeed, given Christian Action Network’s use of the Governor’s name without his permission, nor has it shown extreme bias or incompetence. It thus has failed to meet the bad faith, harassment, and bias exception to Younger. Christian Action Network contends also that it will suffer “great and immediate irreparable harm to fundamental constitutional rights.” Resp. at 2. But it is well-settled that a First Amendment facial challenge to a statute, like that mounted here, does not preclude Younger abstention. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 53, 91 S.Ct. 746 (<HOLDING>); see also Brooks, 80 F.3d at 641 (same).

A: recognizing that plaintiffs had standing to allege infringements of their first amendment rights where the record established that they had been threatened with enforcement of the statute and that such enforcement would cause them injury
B: recognizing that the csra did not explicitly limit federal court jurisdiction to enjoin unconstitutional personnel actions by federal agencies
C: holding that eleventh amendment did not bar an action in federal courts seeking to enjoin a state attorney general from enforcing a statute claimed to violate the us constitution
D: holding that a federal court should not enjoin enforcement of a statute solely because on its face it abridges first amendment rights
D.