- The family of Charlie Kirk filed a notice of claim against the state of Utah.
- The notice prepares the way for a wrongful death lawsuit in the next year.
- It alleges UVU failed to monitor rooftop access despite promises to do so.
The family of Charlie Kirk prepared the way for a lawsuit against Utah Valley University by notifying the state on Sept. 9 of wrongful death claims, alleging that security failures by UVU led to Kirk’s assassination.
No dollar figure was included in the filing. But the potential damages are “substantial,” according to the document obtained by the Deseret News.
Under Utah code, a spouse, child or parent of an individual who died because of the negligent actions of a government employee must file a notice of claim within one year of the death and a formal lawsuit within two years.
Prospective plaintiffs in a future case could include Kirk’s heirs, including his wife, Erika Kirk; his two children, who are identified by their initials, G.K. and M.K.; and possibly other family members, like his parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk.
The legal action provides evidence to assert that those who oversaw UVU security on Sept. 10, 2025, the day of Kirk’s murder, dismissed requests for a larger police presence and neglected to adequately monitor nearby roof access.
These omissions resulted in the public shooting of Kirk, according to a statement on behalf of Brett Parkinson, co-founder of Parkinson Benson Potter, a firm with offices in California, Texas and Utah, specializing in wildfire and personal injury litigation.
“His murder was entirely preventable and, in fact, would not have happened had the State of Utah and UVU followed through on their stated security promises, which included protecting the rooftops surrounding the quad where Charlie was speaking,” Parkinson said.
The notice of claim ensures the Kirk family can pursue a court remedy over the next year.
If a lawsuit is filed, the prospective defendants “are anticipated to be Utah Valley University, the State of Utah, the Utah Valley University Police Department, UVU Chief of Police Jeffrey Long, and former president of UVU, Astrid Tuminez, and other state actors known or unknown at this time.”
In a statement to the Deseret News, a spokesperson for the university said, “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.”
Accusation of unheeded warnings
A central allegation in the claim is that UVU police assured Turning Point USA, the conservative student group founded by Kirk, that it would secure the roofs overlooking the amphitheater where Kirk would be sitting.
The campus event was similar to hundreds of others Kirk had done since 2018. Sitting beneath a pop-up tent on a foldable chair, Kirk spoke into a mic, engaging in debates with students before a crowd of 3,000 people.
Prior to the “American Comeback” tour’s first stop in Orem, Utah, a Turning Point USA official allegedly told Long via text that TPUSA chapter members were concerned about easy roof access overlooking the outdoor site.
“If this is true, it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well. If Possible,” the TPUSA official told Long, according to the notice of claim filing.
“I got you covered,” Long allegedly responded.
This response left Turning Point with the impression that UVU had a plan for securing the area, the notice of claim states. Only UVU law enforcement had authority to block off parts of campus to create a safe environment, it says.
However, multiple reports suggest UVU police did not station officers on the rooftops, did not watch live security footage recording the roof where Kirk’s alleged killer created a “sniper’s nest” and did not deploy drones.
In the aftermath of the shooting, students attested it was well-known how often students easily accessed the roofs.
The notice alleges that based on “information and belief, Chief Jeffrey Long requested approval from then UVU President, Astrid Tuminez, to allocate more than the six officers — which represented only 25% of the UVU police force — but his request was denied.”
UVU police subsequently did not request additional help from neighboring police departments, the notice states.
“You try to get your bases covered and unfortunately today we didn’t,” Long said on the afternoon Kirk was shot.
Turning Point returned to UVU on the anniversary of Kirk’s assassination for a memorial that featured extensive security precautions. Law enforcement agencies from across Utah County, including SWAT teams and K-9 units, patrolled the campus and stood on every roof top.
UVU security review
From these data points, the Kirk family’s counsel concludes that UVU did not conduct a thorough risk assessment for Kirk’s “Prove Me Wrong” event — which typically attracts several hundred to several thousand attendees.
There allegedly was no written security plan or briefing before the event, according to the notice, which states that rooftop access should have been a priority, considering the attempt against President Donald Trump’s life in July 2024.
These findings taken together “shock the conscience,” the notice says, claiming that this meets the definition of a state-created danger under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and a wrongful death under state statute.
The notice of claim repeatedly refers to a forthcoming security review from UVU that has been delayed.
Last year, on Sept. 22, UVU announced it would commission a “comprehensive independent review with an external organization” to analyze campus security procedures on Sept. 10, 2025 and prior to that day.
The university also received criticism from students, faculty and parents for its handling of the shooting.
After Kirk was shot at 12:23 p.m. on Sept. 10, it took nearly 20 minutes for an alert system to send a message. Those on campus were then given conflicting statements about whether they should leave or stay in place.
At the time of the shooting, retired Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank said police were in a tough position, considering that Kirk was not an elected official with Secret Service resources and that Kirk preferred open-air debates.
A public procurement process in November yielded two top contenders for the UVU security review. Both were hired, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP for legal expertise, and The Lake Forest Group as a security consultant.
The review, initially scheduled to conclude in “late spring 2026,” is expected to be released this fall. Coming in at nearly $400,000, the review has already cost much more, and taken longer, than comparable reviews at other Utah universities in recent years.
