The case of Dada v. Mukasey, 2007 revolved around the issue of immigration law and voluntary departure. Nigerian citizen Samson Taiwo Dada overstayed his visa in the United States and was ordered to leave voluntarily within a specified period or face deportation. However, he appealed this decision while still remaining in the country beyond his permitted stay duration, which led to an automatic penalty of a ten-year bar from reentering U.S territory. The Supreme Court had to decide whether an immigrant could appeal their removal order after agreeing to depart voluntarily but then staying past their allowed time limit. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that immigrants who agree to leave voluntarily should be given an opportunity for a motion to reopen their cases before being forced out of the country; thus siding with Dada's argument that he should have been able not only appeal but also extend his voluntary departure period while doing so without triggering penalties associated with overstaying.

In the dissenting opinion for Dada v. Mukasey, Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of immigration law that allowed an alien to withdraw a voluntary departure request before the expiration of the departure period. He argued that this interpretation was not supported by statutory text or legislative history and created unnecessary complications in immigration proceedings. According to Scalia, once an alien requests voluntary departure and is granted it by a judge, they should be bound by their decision and not permitted to change their mind later on. This would prevent manipulation of legal loopholes to delay deportation indefinitely while remaining in the U.S illegally. Furthermore, he criticized how such withdrawal could potentially lead to automatic conversion into removal order without any hearing or due process rights for aliens.