The family of Charlie Kirk claims his shooting death at Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem was "entirely preventable," alleging the institution failed to implement adequate security protocols. Attorneys representing Kirk’s family made these accusations in a notice of claim dated September 9, marking the first public instance where they have blamed the university for his death.
The notice of claim, a necessary legal step in Utah to pursue a lawsuit against a governmental entity such as a public university, asserts that through "a series of stunning failures and reckless decisions," UVU created a foreseeable danger that left Kirk "helpless" to a rooftop shooter. His attorneys contend the assassination could have been avoided if UVU had taken reasonable steps to plan and oversee a safe event.
Kirk, a conservative activist, podcaster, and founder of the student organization Turning Point USA, was shot and killed last year while speaking under a tent in a courtyard on the UVU campus. The incident occurred just moments into his event, which drew approximately 3,000 attendees.
The family's attorneys publicly released the letter on Wednesday, a little over a year after the shooting. Among their allegations, they state that only six UVU police officers were assigned to an event of that size. They also claim the university did not enlist assistance from other police departments, nor did it use drones or real-time surveillance video feeds to monitor rooftops around the event area.
Furthermore, the notice alleges that UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long sought approval from then-university President Astrid Tuminez to assign six additional officers for the event, but this request was denied. The family’s attorneys, however, did not provide evidence for this specific allegation within the notice. The eight-page letter addresses the office of Utah Attorney General Brown, which handles civil matters for state institutions, and also names Tuminez, the university’s police department, and Chief Long.
Prior to the shooting, public access to a nearby roof had been a point of discussion between a Turning Point USA representative and Chief Long, according to the notice. When the representative shared a student's concern about roof access to the Sorensen Student Center near the stage, Chief Long reportedly replied, "I got you covered." While authorities indicate the fatal shot originated from a different, more distant rooftop of the Losee Center, the family’s attorneys say this conversation led Turning Point USA to believe UVU had a plan to manage similar risks.
Brett Parkinson, an attorney for the family, stated that Kirk's 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 added that these failures not only cost Kirk his life but also profoundly impacted his family.
UVU leaders declined to comment directly on the legal claims when contacted on Wednesday. In an unsigned statement, the university said, “UVU addresses legal matters consistent with our established processes. Our focus remains on supporting our campus community.”
Meanwhile, a 23-year-old Utah man, Tyler Robinson, is accused of fatally shooting Kirk using his grandfather’s hunting rifle from a rooftop perch. A judge on September 1 ordered Robinson to stand trial for aggravated murder, to which he has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors, who allege Robinson targeted Kirk for his political views and endangered his audience, have indicated they will seek the death penalty if he is convicted. Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, who succeeded him as head of Turning Point USA, attended a six-day hearing in Provo alongside his parents this past summer, with Donald Trump Jr. also present in support.
The notice of claim underscores Kirk's profile as a rising political figure with a significant social media presence, noting a trend of political violence before his death. While campus safety reviews are still underway more than a year after the incident, the family's legal action signals a potential civil suit seeking accountability from the university.
