The legal notice says Utah Valley University ignored rooftop warnings, assigned only six campus officers to a 3,000-person political event and failed to establish the protections routinely used for controversial speakers.
By Lucretia Hughes Klucken
OREM, Utah — The family of Charlie Kirk has taken the first formal step toward a wrongful-death lawsuit, alleging that a “series of stunning failures and reckless decisions” by Utah Valley University left the conservative activist exposed to the rooftop gunman accused of assassinating him.
The notice of claim was filed Sept. 9, one day before the first anniversary of Kirk’s death, with the Utah attorney general’s office.
It was submitted on behalf of Kirk’s estate, his widow, Erika Kirk, their two young children and his parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk.
The filing does not begin a lawsuit by itself. It preserves the family’s ability to bring legal action against Utah government entities and officials under state law.
The prospective defendants include Utah Valley University, the state of Utah, the university’s police department, Police Chief Jeffrey Long, former university President Astrid Tuminez and potentially other parties.
The family alleges that Kirk’s murder was preventable.
“Through a series of stunning failures and reckless decisions, the UVU Parties created a foreseeable danger to Charlie,” the notice states, according to ABC News.
Kirk, 31, was speaking at an outdoor campus event on Sept. 10, 2025, when he was fatally shot.
Approximately 3,000 people were gathered in Utah Valley University’s quad for the first stop on Turning Point USA’s American Comeback Tour.
The gunman fired from the roof of a campus building approximately 415 feet from where Kirk was seated, prosecutors said.
Tyler Robinson, 23, is charged with aggravated murder and other offenses. He has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
A Utah judge ruled Sept. 1 that sufficient evidence existed for the criminal case to proceed toward trial. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
The Kirk family’s legal notice does not transfer responsibility for the shooting away from the alleged gunman.
It raises a separate question: Did the university and government officials responsible for securing the event fail to take reasonable precautions against a danger they could have anticipated?
That question deserves a complete and independent answer.
The filing alleges that the university failed to perform a meaningful risk assessment before allowing a nationally recognized and politically controversial speaker to appear in an outdoor courtyard surrounded by elevated buildings.
Only six Utah Valley University police officers were assigned to the event.
Kirk also traveled with an eight-person private security team, but private protection officers did not possess the same authority or access as campus police to control university buildings, secure rooftops or monitor campus surveillance systems.
The notice argues that only the university and its police department had the authority to take several of the precautions that were allegedly omitted.
There was no secure perimeter, according to reporting on the claim.
There were no metal detectors or bag checks.
Local law-enforcement agencies were not brought in to provide additional officers.
No drone was reportedly used to monitor nearby rooftops, and the family alleges that surveillance cameras were not being watched in real time.
The event also lacked an ambulance and emergency medical team positioned for an immediate response, according to the filing.
After Kirk was shot, he was transported to a hospital in a private vehicle.
Those allegations are especially serious because Turning Point USA reportedly warned campus police about rooftop access before the event.
According to the notice, a Turning Point USA official texted Chief Long that students might be able to access a roof near Kirk’s speaking location and requested that the area be controlled or that a member of Kirk’s security team be allowed to monitor it.
Long allegedly responded, “I got you covered.”
The Kirk family argues that the response led Kirk’s team to reasonably believe the university had a plan for protecting the surrounding rooftops.
The fatal shot was later fired from a different campus roof.
The risk was not abstract.
One year earlier, a gunman had climbed onto a roof overlooking a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and opened fire at then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Trump was wounded. Rally attendee Corey Comperatore was killed while shielding his family, and two other spectators were seriously injured.
The image of an unsecured rooftop overlooking a major political event had already become a national warning.
Political violence continued before Kirk’s visit to Utah. Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were killed at their home in June 2025. State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife were wounded in a related attack.
Paul Pelosi, the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had previously been attacked inside the couple’s California home.
Kirk had also faced repeated threats and protests because of his public advocacy, his relationship with Trump and his leadership of Turning Point USA.
Against that background, the family contends that a rooftop threat should have been among the first dangers considered by university officials.
This was not a routine classroom lecture.
It was a nationally advertised political event featuring one of the country’s most prominent conservative voices, conducted outdoors before thousands of people.
A university inviting or approving an event of that magnitude assumes a responsibility to plan for foreseeable risks.
That does not mean every act of violence can be prevented. Security cannot guarantee that a determined attacker will never succeed.
But the law does not require perfection. It requires reasonable care.
The family’s attorneys must ultimately prove that the university owed Kirk a legal duty, breached that duty and that the breach contributed to his death.
Utah Valley University will have the right to challenge every allegation and present evidence about its planning, its coordination with Kirk’s private security team and the limitations facing campus officers.
Long said after the shooting that university police worked with Kirk’s security personnel to establish protocols.
“We worked together,” Long said during a briefing on the day of the attack.
He said some of the six university officers were in plain clothes and monitoring the crowd.
Long also acknowledged that the protections failed.
“You try to get your bases covered, and, unfortunately, today we didn’t,” he said.
The university issued a brief statement after receiving the notice.
“We are aware of the notice of claim,” Utah Valley University said. “UVU addresses legal matters consistent with our established processes. Our focus remains on supporting our campus community.”
The Utah attorney general’s office declined to comment on potential litigation.
The university previously announced a third-party review of the assassination and pledged to use its findings to improve security at Utah institutions.
That report must be thorough, independent and made public to the fullest extent possible without jeopardizing Robinson’s criminal trial.
Americans deserve to know who approved the outdoor location, what threat assessment was performed, why additional agencies were not requested and whether campus buildings were checked or secured.
They deserve to know why the university allegedly failed to monitor surveillance cameras covering rooftops around the quad.
They deserve to know what university officials understood when Turning Point USA raised concerns about roof access.
And they deserve to know whether an ambulance and trained medical personnel should have been positioned near the event.
These questions are not about assigning blame based on grief or political loyalty.
They are about preventing the next assassination.
Universities routinely host political speakers whose views provoke protests and threats. Campus officials cannot control the ideology or intentions of every person who enters their property.
They can control event locations, building access, police staffing, emergency coordination and surveillance.
Freedom of speech means little if a speaker can be placed in an exposed courtyard while authorities fail to secure the high ground.
Universities should not cancel controversial speakers because protecting them requires work.
They should do the work.
That means realistic risk assessments, coordination with local and state law enforcement, controlled access points, rooftop security, trained emergency personnel and clearly defined responsibilities between private security and public police.
Political violence must never become the price of participating in American public life.
Kirk’s widow has publicly spoken about forgiveness, but forgiveness does not erase accountability.
There is a difference between forgiving the person accused of pulling the trigger and excusing institutions that may have ignored obvious danger.
The criminal prosecution will determine Robinson’s legal responsibility.
A potential civil case will determine whether government entities and officials also bear responsibility for security failures that allegedly made the attack possible.
Both proceedings must follow the evidence.
Charlie Kirk was a husband, a father and a son before he was a political figure.
His family is now asking the legal system to determine whether reasonable precautions could have saved his life.
The university must answer with records, evidence and truth.
If officials followed accepted security practices, they should demonstrate it.
If warnings were ignored, cameras went unwatched and rooftops remained unsecured, those responsible must be held accountable.
Not for revenge.
For justice—and to ensure that no other American family receives the same devastating phone call.
Sources: ABC News report on the Kirk family’s notice of claim; CBS News and Associated Press report; Utah Department of Public Safety shooting update; Utah Government Records Office decision concerning investigative records.
Original article
Comments