v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 113 S.Ct. 732, 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). 176 . See, e.g., New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 184-86, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (refusing to hold that the Guarantee Clause claims being asserted presented nonjusticiable political questions); Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221, 229-230, 106 S.Ct. 2860, 92 L.Ed.2d 166 (1986) (concluding that a challenge to a refusal to certify Japan for certain harvesting of whales was not a political question); Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 118-27, 106 S.Ct. 2797, 92 L.Ed.2d 85 (1986) (rejecting argument that gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable political questions); Oneida County, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of Ny, 470 U.S. 226, 248-50, 105 S.Ct. 1245, 84 L.Ed.2d 169 (1985) (<HOLDING>); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940-43, 103
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 that an indian tribes claims of possessory rights were not political questions holding that federal legislation with respect to indian tribes  is not based upon impermissible racial classifications and noting that article i  8 of the constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce  with the indian tribes holding that indian tribes are distinct independent political communities retaining their original natural rights in matters of selfgovernment 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