Iowa College Athletes Urge 8th Circuit to Revive Geofence Tracking Lawsuit

Iowa Athletes Target Warrantless Geofence Searches in Sports Betting Probe

Twenty-seven athletes from two Iowa universities and a community college filed the lawsuit against state law enforcement officers. Investigators used geofencing technology to track when sports betting apps were opened or used in or near athletic facilities. Users voluntarily shared this location data to gamble online, according to court records. Investigators then used information gathered from the broader search to issue subpoenas, seek targeted warrants, and obtain additional records. This probe led to suspensions, loss of eligibility, and criminal charges for certain college athletes, though some charges were later dropped due to the extended scope of the geolocation search.

James P. Roberts, an attorney representing the college athletes from the Addison, Texas-based firm Palmer Perlstein, argued before the panel that the lower court erred in granting qualified immunity. United States to support the claim that the search violated constitutional rules regarding digital location information. “Defendants searched digital, historical location information to identify individuals, and then determined if those individuals had even committed a crime,” Roberts told the panel.

District Court Found Fourth Amendment Violation but Granted Immunity

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger dismissed the case in November 2025. The Barack Obama appointee determined that the investigators’ warrantless sweep of gambling app users’ phone data violated the athletes’ Fourth Amendment rights. However, Judge Ebinger dismissed the case after finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of the geolocation search was not clearly established at the time.

Circuit Judge Bobby Shepherd, a George W. Bush appointee, noted that rapid technological changes present significant challenges for law enforcement trying to determine legal boundaries. U.S. Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz, a Donald Trump appointee, questioned how courts can keep pace with evolving technology, noting that under the plaintiffs’ reasoning, the law might never be clearly established because technology constantly changes.

State Defense Questions Standing and Cites Statutory Monitoring

Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan, representing the state, defended the lower court’s decision and questioned the standing of several plaintiffs under the Fourth Amendment. Wessan stated that 17 of the plaintiffs and intervenors used accounts belonging to other individuals to engage in sports gambling, violating the underlying applications’ terms of service to evade restrictions on their own betting eligibility. “Whether anyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in using someone’s sports gambling app illicitly to gamble is itself a threshold question, that I think the answer should be ‘no,’” Wessan said. Wessan also reminded the panel that the U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned lower courts to evaluate qualified immunity claims carefully.

The state explained in court briefs that sports gambling organizations are required by statute to monitor users’ geolocation activity and report suspicious actions to the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission. Many sportsbooks use GeoComply, an Iowa-based vendor that provides geolocation software tools to track and display location data, and disclose to users that this data may be shared with third parties or law enforcement.

U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras joined Judges Shepherd and Grasz on the panel. The Eighth Circuit did not indicate when it will issue its decision.