to adopt plaintiffs' argument because Morales has direct application to the present case, and the Supreme Court has yet to state that Morales is no longer binding in the context of ADA preemption. See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997) ("We reaffirm that '[i]f a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the [lower court] should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’ ” (quoting Rodriguez de Quijos v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989))); see also United Airlines, Inc. v. Mesa Airlines, Inc., 219 F.3d 605, 608-09 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 23 . As the court explains infra at §
holding that it is not our prerogative to overrule or ignore clearly written decisions of our supreme court holding that we must follow a prior binding precedent unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the supreme court quotation marks omitted holding that court is not able to conclude that recent erisa cases have overruled morales and noting that our inarching orders are clear follow decisions until the supreme court overrules them holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court