A federal court dismissal highlights the controversial doctrine of qualified immunity—and college athletes paid the price with their careers
In a decision that’s turning heads across college sports and legal circles, a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by more than 35 Iowa college athletes despite explicitly ruling that the investigation into their activities violated the Constitution.
What Happened
State investigators from Iowa’s Division of Criminal Investigation conducted warrantless geolocation tracking using data from major sports betting apps like DraftKings and FanDuel. Through software provided by the Canadian company GeoComply, agents tracked athletes’ phones inside athletic facilities at the University of Iowa, Iowa State, and Ellsworth Community College to identify who was placing bets on games.
The investigation worked. Criminal charges followed—mostly underage gambling pleas—but the real damage came in the form of lost NCAA eligibility. Several athletes saw their college careers end immediately.
The Constitutional Catch-22
Here’s where it gets complicated. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger ruled that the searches were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Clear violation, right? Not so fast.
Despite acknowledging the constitutional violation, Judge Ebinger granted the investigators qualified immunity. Her reasoning? This type of surveillance was too “novel”—courts hadn’t yet established a consensus on the legality of using sports betting app verification systems to conduct warrantless geolocation tracking.
“The ability to surveil a person’s historical geolocation data using an app’s verification system is novel and courts have yet to reach a consensus on the constitutionality of such searches,” Ebinger wrote.
Translation: Yes, it was unconstitutional. No, there are no consequences.
Qualified Immunity Under Fire
The ruling has reignited debate over qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields government officials from liability unless they violated “clearly established” rights. Critics argue this case demonstrates the doctrine at its worst—allowing officials to violate constitutional rights as long as they find a creative new method to do it.
The logic creates a troubling paradox: because this specific method of unconstitutional searching was new, investigators couldn’t have known it was wrong, even though warrantless searches violating the Fourth Amendment are hardly uncharted legal territory.
For the athletes involved, the theoretical constitutional debate offers little comfort. Their careers are over, criminal records exist, and the investigation that ended it all has been deemed unconstitutional—yet the investigators face no accountability.
The Competing Interests
To be clear: athlete gambling on games they can influence is a legitimate concern. The NCAA’s prohibition exists for good reason—protecting the integrity of competition is fundamental to college sports. When athletes bet on their own teams or games within their conferences, it creates potential conflicts of interest that can undermine fair play. According to court documents, some of the tracked wagers did involve the athletes’ own teams or other games at their schools.
Investigating potential match-fixing and illegal gambling? That’s appropriate. Iowa even classifies match-fixing as a felony, underscoring how seriously the state takes competitive integrity.
But here’s the problem: protecting the integrity of sports doesn’t justify abandoning constitutional protections. The ends don’t justify unconstitutional means. Law enforcement has established procedures—warrants, probable cause, judicial oversight—specifically designed to balance public safety with individual rights. Those procedures exist for everyone, including college athletes who may have broken the rules.
The judge herself acknowledged this wasn’t about whether the investigation had a valid purpose (it did), but whether it was conducted lawfully (it wasn’t).
What’s Next?
The ruling was issued just this Wednesday, and no announcement about an appeal has been made yet. However, cases involving novel Fourth Amendment questions and qualified immunity are frequently appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Given that a federal judge explicitly acknowledged the constitutional violation, and considering the significant harm to dozens of college athletes’ careers, an appeal would seem likely. The broader implications for digital privacy and the use of novel surveillance technologies could make this case one to watch in the coming months.
The irony isn’t lost: in an investigation meant to protect the integrity of college sports, the investigators themselves failed to follow the rules. And unlike the athletes they pursued, they face no consequences for it.