context: Had there been no dissent, it is unlikely scholars would have launched into the esoteric debate over which powers of Congress can be delegated and which cannot. It is the dissent that interjected the idea that the majority's discussion of constitutional problems turns on a "metaphysical distinction" between taxes and fees.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 94 S.Ct. 1150, 1150
citation_a.parenthetical: incorporated by reference as dissent to National Cable, 415 U.S. at 344, 94 S.Ct. at 1150
citation_a.sentence: New England Power, 415 U.S. at 352, 94 S.Ct. at 1155 (Marshall, J., concurring) (incorporated by reference as dissent to National Cable, 415 U.S. at 344, 94 S.Ct. at 1150). While a lower court is not free to depart from a holding of the Supreme Court and will pay close attention even to dicta therein, we know of no principle that requires us to accept the characterization of the majority’s holding put forth in a dissent. In some instances the majority may choose to add comments to answer specifically a mischaracterization of its ruling.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: "According to the dissent our opinion implies that the Secretary has unlimited authority to deny meritorious claims____ It hardly needs saying that our opinion carries no such implication."
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Bowen v. Yuckert, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2294 n. 6, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987) (“According to the dissent our opinion implies that the Secretary has unlimited authority to deny meritorious claims____ It hardly needs saying that our opinion carries no such implication.”).