The family of slain Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk may be able to present substantial evidence that Utah Valley University and its police department mishandled security before the fatal shooting occurred. However, whether that evidence will reach a jury is a separate, and potentially decisive, question due to Utah’s broad Governmental Immunity Law.
The Kirk family’s notice of claim points to a series of alleged security failures at Utah Valley University (UVU), including unmonitored surveillance feeds and concerns about elevated areas overlooking the event space, among others. An independent review also found that the college did not conduct a standard security assessment or seek mutual aid from neighboring law enforcement agencies, and failed to utilize certain security and surveillance tools at its disposal.
Of all the information unveiled in the independent review, perhaps the most scrutinized detail has been a four-word text attributed to UVU Police Chief Jeff Long. After a Turning Point USA security supervisor raised concerns about a balcony and related sightline issues, Long allegedly responded via text, saying, “I got you covered.”
The question now stands whether this alleged assurance from the governmental official in charge of keeping Charlie Kirk safe could do more than simply support a negligence claim. The Kirk family is hoping it could help them overcome a statutory shield that often prevents wrongful-death claims in the state of Utah from progressing.
Creating a factually compelling claim
Attorney Brian C. Stewart of Parker & McConkie, Personal Injury Lawyers, believes the factual nature of the Kirk family’s claims is as compelling as it is serious.
“The notice of claim filed by Charlie Kirk’s family lays out a troubling account of what happened at Utah Valley University last year,” Stewart said. “There was no written security plan, only six officers for an outdoor crowd of about 3,000, a request for more officers that was denied, and a warning about rooftop access that the police chief allegedly answered with just four words.”
The Kirk family’s claim is straightforward: the university hosted the event, placed responsibility for safety in the hands of campus law enforcement, and failed to take reasonable steps to address foreseeable security risks. Although the independent review found that university personnel had security concerns well before the event took place, including concerns about the event’s location, elevated-access vulnerabilities, and the prominence of Kirk himself, the event proceeded in an open courtyard without a formal security assessment or written plan.
On the day of the shooting, 3,000 people packed the open-air event location, far exceeding the 600-person estimate the campus club initially provided in its event application. The university deployed six on-duty officers. Two plainclothes Utah State University officers and private security personnel were also present. UVU did not request additional officers or security measures, according to Kirk’s family, despite no bag checks, metal detectors, or drone surveillance being present.
Reports also found that surveillance equipment was not being properly monitored. Footage later revealed the alleged shooter reaching the Losee Center roof at 12:17 p.m., approximately six minutes before the fatal shooting. The university reportedly had building-lockdown capability and a tool to detect human activity in restricted areas, including rooftops, but did not use either system.
“The Kirk family has a very compelling case based on the facts,” shares Steward. “Their real challenge is the law.”
Though the evidence of inadequate planning and unfettered rooftop access strengthens the family’s claim of negligence, it may not automatically mean that Utah law will allow them to obtain damages from the university or the government-employed police chief.
The Utah immunity obstacle
Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act states broadly that governmental entities and employees are generally immune from suit for injuries resulting from governmental functions. Among the most consequential provisions is Utah Code Section 63G-7-201(4)(b). It preserves immunity for injuries that “arise out of or in connection with, or result from” assault or battery, among other intentional torts. This includes shootings.
It is the wording that may cause complications for the Kirk family, as Charlie Kirk’s death resulted from a shooting by a third party. The family will likely attempt to characterize the claim not as a suit over the alleged shooter’s conduct, but as a suit over the university’s own alleged negligence. It is still possible, however, that Utah courts will choose to focus on the source of the injury. If the death is deemed to have arisen from or resulted from a battery — the shooting itself — the governmental defendants could argue that the statute bars the claim, even if a plaintiff can plausibly allege that official failures contributed to the circumstances.
“Even if the agency was reckless, the claims can be dismissed before a jury even hears the evidence,” says Stewart. “It’s a steep legal hill to climb.”
Immunity can end a case within its earliest stages, meaning a court may never get to decide if UVU acted reasonably or if their negligence directly led to Kirk’s death.
Providing potential legal pathways to justice
The alleged “I’ve got you covered” text could help Kirk’s family argue that UVU police assumed responsibility for the specific security concerns raised by Kirk’s appearance that day. The family could easily contend that Kirk’s own security team rested their concerns on that assurance from the Police Chief. However, that message alone may not be enough to overcome Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act.
A broader path to a successful claim and recovery may hinge on a constitutional challenge. Stewart explains this path in the context of one of his firm’s well-known clients, the family of murder victim Gabby Petito, whose wrongful death case was dismissed under the same immunity framework and is now under appeal with the Utah Supreme Court.
“The Utah Constitution is clear,” Stewart said. “The right to recover for wrongful death should never be limited by statute.” He added: “Accordingly, we believe that the Immunity Act as applied to wrongful death claims is unconstitutional.”
If the court agrees, it could clear the way for the Kirk family to proceed with a standard negligence case, allowing a clear pathway for the Kirk family and others who believe they were tragically failed by the state to seek the justice they deserve.