The district court correctly abstained on Younger v. Harris grounds and dismissed this suit which sought to enjoin the Hawaii Attorney General from proceeding with a state court suit under Hawaii’s UDAP statute for deceptively marketing Plavix by concealing the fact that Asians and Pacific Islanders have a genetic modification that impairs the drug’s function. The state court suit was the sort of civil enforcement action akin to a criminal prosecution to which Younger v. Harris abstention applies. Hawaii’s state court suit is a suit by the state even though litigated by private counsel, and it seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief for a public wrong. A state is free to choose whether to use state employee attorneys or private counsel to litigate its suits, and the choice is irrelevant for purposes of Younger v. Harris abstention. What matters for Younger v. Harris abstention purposes is whether the state suit falls within the general class of quasi-criminal enforcement actions, not whether the specific suit meets all the characteristics of a civil enforcement action mentioned in Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs (2013) 134 S.Ct. 584.