The college athletes gambling case returned to federal court this week as a three-judge panel in St. Louis heard arguments over whether a lawsuit by more than two dozen Iowa athletes should be revived.
According to court filings and oral arguments, 27 current and former athletes from two universities and a community college in Iowa allege their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement used geofencing to identify people who accessed sports betting apps near collegiate athletic facilities. Authorities then issued subpoenas and secured warrants based on that data.
The lawsuit was dismissed in November 2025 by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger of the Southern District of Iowa. She concluded that although the athletes’ rights were violated, the unconstitutionality of the geofencing practice was not clearly established at the time, which entitled officials to qualified immunity.
During Tuesday’s hearing before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, counsel for the athletes, James P. Roberts, argued that investigators sifted through digital, historical location information to identify individuals first, then looked to see if a crime had occurred. He maintained that the central question is whether the information is protected and requires a warrant, rather than the constitutionality of any particular technology.
Representing the state, Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan countered that qualified immunity cannot be overcome absent clearly established precedent, pointing out that no such precedent existed within the circuit. He also questioned whether many of the athletes bringing suit have standing.
College athletes gambling case raises questions about evolving tech
Members of the appellate panel signaled concern that rapidly changing investigative tools complicate the clarity of constitutional standards. One judge noted that under an approach tied closely to specific technologies, the law might never be clearly established if apps or methods keep changing.
The court took the matter under advisement. A decision will determine whether the athletes’ claims can proceed despite the qualified immunity ruling.