Charlie Kirk’s family has filed a notice of claim against Utah and Utah Valley University officials alleging that inadequate planning, insufficient staffing and unsecured rooftops contributed to his 2025 killing.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The family of Charlie Kirk has taken a formal step toward possible legal action against the state of Utah and Utah Valley University, alleging that officials failed to address known security vulnerabilities before he was fatally shot from a campus rooftop last year.
Representatives for Kirk’s family made the notice of claim public Wednesday, according to The Washington Post. Utah law requires a notice of claim before certain lawsuits can proceed against government entities, meaning the filing preserves the family’s ability to pursue a case but is not itself a lawsuit.
The filing centers heavily on rooftop security at Kirk’s Sept. 10, 2025, appearance at Utah Valley University in Orem, where authorities say a gunman fired from an elevated position overlooking the outdoor gathering.
According to the family’s claim, a Turning Point USA official specifically raised concerns with UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long before the event about students being able to reach nearby rooftops.
If students could access a roof, “it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well,” the official wrote, according to the filing.
“I got you covered,” Long allegedly responded.
The family argues that the exchange demonstrates university officials had advance notice that accessible elevated positions presented a potential security issue.
“Through a series of stunning failures and reckless decisions, the [Utah officials] created a foreseeable danger to Charlie,” the notice of claim states.
Kirk was speaking before a crowd at the outdoor university event when he was struck by a gunshot. The FBI later released video that authorities said showed the shooter on a university rooftop before fleeing by jumping from the building and running from the area.
The family’s filing alleges the university did not conduct a meaningful risk assessment before approving the appearance and that campus police lacked a written security plan for the event.
It also states that Long sought authorization from the university’s then-president to deploy more than six officers, approximately one-fourth of the university police force, but the request was denied.
Long said shortly after the shooting that six uniformed university officers were assigned to the event in addition to plainclothes officers in the crowd. He also said campus police had coordinated security with Kirk’s private protection team.
The notice maintains that those arrangements proved inadequate once the shooting occurred.
“Indeed, the UVU Parties’ planning was so deficient that when Mr. Kirk was shot, first responders were not available and Mr. Kirk was transported to Timpanogos Regional Hospital in a private vehicle, not an ambulance,” the family’s filing states.
The family also argues that the danger posed by unsecured rooftops should have received particular attention because of the July 2024 assassination attempt against President Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
A gunman in that case fired from a nearby rooftop, striking Trump and killing an attendee before being shot by authorities. Kirk’s family cites that attack as part of the security environment university officials should have considered while preparing for a high-profile outdoor political event.
According to the claim, additional security measures available to the university included drones and real-time monitoring of surveillance cameras. The family contends those tools could have provided greater observation of the buildings surrounding Kirk’s appearance.
Video evidence presented during the criminal investigation showed a person moving across the rooftop overlooking the courtyard around the time of the shooting. The FBI subsequently said the gunman climbed onto a roof before the attack and jumped from it while fleeing.
Utah Valley University has not accepted the allegations made in the claim.
“We are aware of the notice of claim. UVU addresses legal matters consistent with our established processes. Our focus remains on supporting our campus community,” the university said in a statement.
Shortly after Kirk’s death, UVU announced that it would commission an independent outside review of the shooting, the university’s response and its security procedures. The university said the review was intended to identify lessons that could improve campus safety and emergency preparedness.
Those findings have not been publicly released.
UVU President Jon Anderson, who assumed the position after Kirk’s death, recently told The Salt Lake Tribune that the review remained in progress.
“When we get the report, it will be very comprehensive,” Anderson said. “And it’s just taken time to get it to that point.”
The family’s filing comes approximately one year after Kirk’s killing and as the criminal prosecution of Tyler James Robinson advances toward trial.
Robinson faces seven criminal counts, including aggravated murder, in connection with Kirk’s death. A Utah judge ruled earlier this month that prosecutors had presented sufficient evidence for the aggravated murder case to proceed to trial. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty if Robinson is convicted.
A trial date has not been set.
Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, and other relatives have attended proceedings in Robinson’s case. Erika Kirk assumed leadership of Turning Point USA after her husband’s death.
The notice of claim addresses a different question from the criminal prosecution. Rather than determining who carried out the shooting, the family is alleging that the government entities responsible for security failed to take reasonable precautions that could have reduced the danger surrounding Kirk’s appearance.
Central to that allegation is the warning delivered to university police before the event about rooftop access and the response Kirk’s security team says it received from Long.
The family’s filing now preserves its ability to ask a court to determine whether Utah and university officials bear legal responsibility for alleged failures in the planning and security surrounding the event.
Original article
Comments