agencies, [and] political subdivisions.” Pub. L. No. 92-261, § 2(1), 86 Stat. 103-113 (1972) (alteration supplied). The amended definit ton) (Clinton Ros-siter ed., 1963) (2003 reprint). 25 . "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 5 (1868). 26 . Additional Principal Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant, at 12-13. 27 . Several district courts also have held that Congress has not abrogated tribal sovereign immunity under the ADEA. See, e.g., Bales v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, 606 F.Supp.2d 1299, 1308 (D. N.M. 2009) ("Congress did not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity when it enacted the ADEA.”); Colmar v. Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians, No. CIV S-09-0742 DAD, 2011 WL 2456628 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2011) (<HOLDING>). 28 . Additional Principal Brief for
holding in the context of an adea claim that an indian tribes sovereign immunity had not been abrogated by congress and subject matter jurisdiction did not exist holding that an indian tribes exercise of criminal jurisdiction over nonindians is inconsistent with the domesticdependent status of the tribes and that tribes may not assume such jurisdiction without congressional authorization holding that congress which regulated the introduction of alcoholic beverages in indian country could validly delegate to indian tribes its authority to regulate that subject matter because indian tribes themselves possessed independent authority over the subject matter holding the americans with disabilities act not to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity and declaring congress abrogates tribal immunity only where the definitive language of the statute itself states an intent either to abolish indian tribes common law immunity or to subject tribes to suit under the act holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred a claim for money damages against the librarian of congress in his official capacity because immunity had not been waived and the exceptions to immunity did not apply