In Dahda v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained from a wiretap order which exceeded its jurisdiction could still be used in court if it satisfied federal law requirements. The case involved Los and Roosevelt Dahda who were convicted of participating in an illegal drug distribution conspiracy based on evidence gathered through Title III wiretap orders authorized by a Kansas District Judge. However, these orders allowed interception outside the judge's territorial jurisdiction violating Title III’s territorial limitation but complied with all other statutory requirements. The brothers argued this violation meant all intercepted communications should be suppressed as 'unlawfully intercepted'. In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed stating that while some parts of the orders were invalid due to exceeding their geographical boundaries, they did not affect those parts authorizing interception within the correct territory - thus making them lawful under federal statute.

In the dissenting opinion for DAHDA v. UNITED STATES, Justice Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. He argued that wiretap orders exceeding their jurisdictional bounds should be suppressed in accordance with Section 2515 of Title III, which states that no part of intercepted communications can be received as evidence if disclosure would violate this chapter. According to him, a wiretap order authorizing surveillance outside its territorial jurisdiction is unlawful under Section 2518(10)(a), thus any evidence obtained from it should not be admissible in court. The majority’s decision to allow such unlawfully obtained evidence undermines Congress' intent when they enacted these laws - to protect privacy rights against unwarranted government intrusion by ensuring strict compliance with statutory requirements for electronic surveillance.