The family of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has initiated legal proceedings against Utah Valley University (UVU), filing a notice of claim on September 9. This action signals their intent to pursue wrongful death claims stemming from Kirk's fatal shooting on campus approximately one year prior. The legal document names the State of Utah, UVU, its police department, Chief Jeffrey Long, and former university president Astrid Tuminez as potentially liable parties.
"Kirk was legally entitled to believe the event would only proceed with security sufficient to keep him safe, and that instead the UVU Parties’ failures shock the conscience." Legal Notice filed by Kirk Family Attorneys
Central to the family's claim is the argument that decisions made by university and law enforcement officials constituted a "state-created danger" under constitutional due process protections. This is coupled with a traditional wrongful death theory under Utah state statute. The filing asserts that the university approved the event, which drew an estimated 3,000 people, without adequate scrutiny or a formal risk assessment. Furthermore, it alleges that officers assigned to the scene received no specific briefing on potential rooftop-related threats.
Police staffing levels are a significant component of the allegations. The notice claims only six officers were present to cover the large gathering. According to the filing, Chief Long had sought authorization to bring in additional personnel, a request equivalent to roughly one-quarter of the department’s total force. This request was reportedly rejected by then-university president Tuminez. The family's attorneys also state that no outside agencies were brought in to supplement security coverage for the event. The alleged staffing shortfall extended to the emergency response itself; following Kirk's shooting, no ambulance was reportedly on hand, necessitating his transport to Timpanogos Regional Hospital by private vehicle.
Surveillance capabilities and their alleged underutilization form a core part of the family's argument. The legal notice lists specific security measures that the university purportedly failed to implement. These include a locked-down perimeter, metal detectors, restricted building access, live camera monitoring, and drone surveillance. Attorneys emphasize that these tools were exclusively available to campus authorities, not to Kirk's personal security team. Video evidence, reportedly introduced during a preliminary hearing for accused shooter Tyler Robinson, captured him traversing the roof of the Losee Building en route to what the notice describes as a "sniper’s nest." The family's legal representation contends that real-time review of such footage could have potentially prevented the attack.
Perhaps the most striking detail cited in the filing is a text exchange between Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and Chief Long. TPUSA, the organization Kirk represented, reportedly flagged a tip from students concerning stairway access to rooftops near the Sorensen Student Center, close to Kirk's speaking location. A TPUSA representative messaged Long, stating, "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." Chief Long's response, "I got you covered," is highlighted by attorneys as having led Kirk's camp to reasonably believe that university and police officials had assumed responsibility for threats extending beyond his immediate protective perimeter. The notice suggests this belief proved fatally mistaken.
The claim concludes with pointed language, asserting that Kirk "was legally entitled to believe" the event would only proceed with security sufficient to ensure his safety. Instead, the document states, "the UVU Parties’ failures shock the conscience." Erika Kirk, the activist's widow, along with their two young children, are named as the primary individuals prepared to bring suit. The filing also leaves open the possibility that Kirk's parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk, could join as plaintiffs.
University administrators have offered a brief response to the emergence of the notice. A UVU statement confirmed awareness of the filing, indicating the matter would proceed "consistent with our established processes." The statement added that the school's attention remains on "supporting our campus community."
Andrew Kolvet, a spokesman for Turning Point USA, publicly commented on the allegations, describing the process of reviewing the notice as painful. He characterized the described security lapses as failures of routine procedure rather than any extraordinary security challenge. Kolvet argued that protecting Kirk and the crowd required no unusual measures, only adherence to standard campus safety practices which, he suggested, were largely absent that day. He also expressed surprise that university officials reportedly already knew the rooftop near the event served as a casual gathering spot for students to observe activity below, information he believes should have prompted greater caution from the university.
