Kirk family has powerful evidence — but Utah law could derail wrongful death case: experts

Kirk Family Files Wrongful‑Death Suit Against Utah Valley University, Citing Security Failures

Orem, Utah – On September 9, 2026, attorneys representing the family of former Turning Point USA co‑founder Charlie Kirk filed a notice of intent to sue Utah Valley University (UVU). The suit alleges that the university’s security lapses contributed to the tragic shooting that killed Kirk a year earlier, on September 10, 2025, while he was speaking at the campus.

Kirk, 31, was fatally shot by Tyler Robinson during a talk at UVU’s Losee Center, a building adjacent to the Sorenson Center. The incident prompted a statewide investigation and the arrest of Robinson, who faces murder charges and the death penalty.

Allegations of Inadequate Security

The family’s complaint lists a series of alleged security failures on the part of UVU. According to the filing, university officials declined to provide additional police officers at the event, failed to act on concerns raised by Kirk’s own security team, and did not have an adequate plan in place for the speaker’s visit.

A key piece of evidence cited in the filing is a text message sent by UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long to Kirk’s security staff. The message, which has been made public by the family’s attorneys, acknowledges concerns about rooftop access to the Sorenson Center—a location “pretty close” to the Losee Center where the shooting occurred—and reads, “I got you covered.” The family argues that this admission demonstrates a prior awareness of a security risk that was not mitigated.

Defendants named in the lawsuit include UVU President Astrid Tuminez—who stepped down from the post in May 2026 after eight years—and Police Chief Long. The filing also seeks damages for wrongful death against the university’s campus police and other officers who were present during the event.

Utah Government Immunity Law

Legal experts caution that the lawsuit faces a formidable hurdle due to Utah’s government immunity statute (Title 63G §201). The law grants broad protection to state and local entities, their officers, and employees from civil suits that arise out of discretionary functions, assault, battery, false imprisonment, civil‑rights violations, and other listed circumstances. Importantly, the statute bars lawsuits even when the government or its agents acted recklessly, provided the claim originates from a battery—an injury inflicted by force or violence.

Tenielle Brown, a professor of law at the University of Utah, told Fox News Digital that the statute’s language would make it “very difficult” for the Kirk family to prevail. “Even if the state and UVU were reckless, they retain immunity in cases that arise out of a battery,” she said, noting that gunshot wounds are covered under the statute.

The law has been the subject of legal challenges. In the 2005 Utah Supreme Court case Wagner v. Utah, the court held that civil battery does not require intent to cause physical or psychological injury, a decision that some critics argue further entrenches the statute’s reach. Brown pointed to the case of Mika Scott, a 19‑year‑old UVU student who sued the Utah County Sheriff’s Office after being raped by an escaped prisoner. Although Scott could demonstrate carelessness and recklessness, the government’s immunity shield barred her from a successful claim because her injury arose from a battery.

Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, echoed Brown’s assessment that wrongful‑death claims against government entities are “tough because you are trying to hold the police or city, county or state responsible for someone else’s criminal actions.” Rahmani suggested that the family’s strongest argument may hinge on the message from Police Chief Long, which could establish that the university assumed a duty to protect Kirk and failed to fulfill that duty.

UVU’s Response

A UVU spokesperson released a statement acknowledging the notice of claim. “UVU addresses legal matters consistent with our established processes,” the spokesperson said. “Our focus remains on supporting our campus community.”

The spokesperson also noted that the university’s president, Astrid Tuminez, stepped down in May 2026, and that both Tuminez and Police Chief Long were named in the lawsuit.

Broader Implications

The lawsuit raises questions about the scope of government immunity in cases of campus violence and the responsibilities of university officials to provide adequate security. Advocates for reform of the statute argue that the law “does not allow for suits in cases like Charlie Kirk’s” and that its language “makes it very clear that you can’t sue the state if the claim arises out of a battery.”

Others point out that the immunity protects officials who are not elected, such as campus police and university presidents, from being held accountable at the ballot box. “If you were to say sovereign immunity is all about letting people decide whether they’re state actors or careless at the ballot box, then you vote them out of office,” Brown said. “That doesn’t work for the UVU president because nobody can vote them out of office, nobody is having any political check on the campus police.”

The case is pending in the courts. The family’s lawyers have not yet named a lead attorney. The outcome will likely be watched closely by lawmakers, legal scholars, and advocates for campus safety.