Charlie Kirk’s family is preparing for a potentially significant legal fight with Utah Valley University and the state of Utah, alleging that serious security failures left the Turning Point USA founder exposed when he was fatally shot during a campus event on Sept. 10, 2025.
Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, and their two children have filed a notice of claim, a procedural step required before certain lawsuits against Utah government entities can proceed. The notice names Utah Valley University, the state, campus police and university officials as prospective defendants and raises potential wrongful-death and constitutional claims.
The central allegation is straightforward: Kirk’s attorneys contend that university officials knew rooftops surrounding the outdoor event presented a security concern, yet failed to adequately secure them.
According to the filing, a Turning Point USA organizer specifically contacted UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long after students reportedly warned that a nearby rooftop could be accessed.
“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,” the organizer wrote, according to the notice. “If possible.”
“I got you covered,” Long allegedly responded.
That exchange could become particularly important if a lawsuit moves forward. Authorities allege the gunman ultimately fired from the roof of the nearby Losee Center while Kirk was speaking before roughly 3,000 people in an outdoor courtyard.
The family argues rooftop security should have received heightened attention after the attempted assassination of President Trump at a Pennsylvania rally in 2024, where a gunman also fired from an elevated position. The notice says the possibility of a rooftop attack should therefore have been “especially top-of-mind.”
The filing contains additional allegations about event planning. It says UVU failed to conduct an adequate threat assessment, lacked a meaningful written security plan and did not conduct an appropriate security briefing. It further alleges that only six campus police officers were assigned to Kirk’s event.
According to the family, Long sought authorization from then-UVU President Astrid Tuminez for additional officers but was denied. The notice alleges campus police subsequently failed to obtain additional assistance from neighboring law-enforcement agencies.
Another allegation involves the university’s surveillance system. The family says campus cameras captured the suspected shooter moving across the Losee Center roof, but the cameras were not being actively monitored. Attorneys contend that real-time monitoring might have allowed security personnel to detect the threat before the shooting.
The notice also claims emergency planning was inadequate, pointing to Kirk being transported to Timpanogos Regional Hospital in a private vehicle rather than an ambulance.
“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,” family attorney Brett Parkinson said.
The filing goes further, alleging that the university placed Kirk in an exposed outdoor location surrounded by elevated buildings and potential shooting positions while controlling security resources that Kirk’s private team could not independently deploy.
“Tragically, the UVU Parties failed to rise to the occasion,” the filing states. “Through a series of stunning failures and reckless decisions, the UVU Parties created a foreseeable danger to Charlie.”
UVU has not conceded those allegations. The university said it is aware of the notice of claim and handles legal matters through its established processes, adding that its focus remains on supporting the campus community.
Importantly, a notice of claim is not a court judgment establishing liability. The allegations concerning negligence, causation and any constitutional violations remain unproven and could be contested if a lawsuit proceeds.
The dispute now places considerable attention on what security obligations a public university assumes when it approves a large outdoor appearance by a nationally prominent political figure. Kirk’s family argues UVU failed to provide protections it allegedly knew were necessary. Whether those allegations ultimately establish legal responsibility will depend on the evidence and, if litigation proceeds, the courts.
Leave a Comment