Appellate court hears arguments in case involving collegiate athletes accused of gambling
Appellate judges on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis heard oral arguments in a case involving 27 current and former college athletes at two universities and a community college in Iowa. (Image from Shutterstock)
Over two dozen college athletes from colleges in Iowa have asked a federal appeals court to reinstate their lawsuit alleging that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated after a cellphone tracking program allegedly caught them using betting apps.
Courthouse News Service reported Thursday that a panel of appellate judges on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis heard oral arguments in a case involving 27 current and former college athletes at two universities and a community college in Iowa.
The athletes had initially sued the state alleging that law enforcement officers had used “geofencing” technology to determine when users accessed or used sports betting apps within a certain distance of collegiate athletic facilities. Officials then issued subpoenas and obtained warrants based on that information.
The case had been dismissed in November 2025 by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger for the Southern District of Iowa, who found that while the athletes’ rights had been violated, the unconstitutionality of geofencing had not been clearly established yet, giving law enforcement officials qualified immunity.
“Defendants searched digital, historical location information to identify individuals and then determined if those individuals had even committed a crime,” James P. Roberts, the athletes’ lawyer, said in his oral argument, insisting that the issue should not be whether the technology was constitutional but whether the information is protected and subject to a warrant.
On the other hand, Iowa Solicitor Genera Eric Wessan argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has established that officials cannot be stripped of qualified immunity unless there’s clearly established precedent to do so. Wessan argued that there was no such precedent in the circuit court, and he also called into question whether a majority of the suing athletes had standing.
According to Courthouse News Service, two of judges on the panel expressed concern that evolving technology could continue to pose a problem for law enforcement officers, as well as the courts.
“Under your line of reasoning the law would never, ever be clearly established because the technology is constantly changing,” 8th Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz said to Roberts. “So, if there are any small changes to the app, for example, the law would never be clearly established.”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
