Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000), the Supreme Court found that Congress had spoken clearly in attempting to extend liability' under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) to the states, noting that “our cases have never required that Congress make its clear statement in a single section or in statutory provisions enacted at the same time.” Id. at 76, 120 S.Ct. 631. Although Seminole Tribe and Kimel found that-Congress exceeded its powers under the Indian Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, respectively, the point about clear statement rules remains good law. -Indeed, more recent Supreme Court decisions reflect the same understanding. See, e.g., Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 817, 824, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013) (<HOLDING>); Nixon v. Mo. Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 133,
holding that when interpreting a statute or regulation courts must read the provisions of the law as a whole and in context holding courts may not consider any single provision taken in isolation as controlling but must consider all provisions in context of entire instrument holding that congress need not incant magic words in order to speak clearly because courts consider context including the courts interpretations of similar provisions in many years past when facing clear statement rules quotation omitted holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole holding that a similar denial was not superseded because the appellant did not seek a stay of the trial courts order