There was a dissent. Basically, the dissent was that, in context, it was just not as bad as the majority perceived and presented in the majority opinion. The dissent concludes its analysis with this:
Insofar as the merits and the "whole record" weigh in this calculation, Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 527, Kloehn was charged with a transparent scam which anyone with an IQ over room temperature would have seen as illegal. The expenses he claimed were spurious, and the tax free laundering back to him was a smoking gun plus a bullet hole in his defense.
Bottom line? Where's the beef? Where's the prejudice? Where's the damage?