On Sept. 9, the family of the late Charlie Kirk filed a notice of intent to sue Utah Valley University (UVU) for wrongful death, alleging a series of security failures surrounding his fatal shooting on campus last year. The filing comes just one day before the first anniversary of the tragedy.
Legal obstacle: Utah’s government‑immunity statute
Utah law grants extensive immunity to state agencies, their officers and employees for actions taken—or not taken—while performing discretionary functions. The statute also shields entities from claims arising out of battery, assault, false imprisonment and civil‑rights violations. University of Utah law professor Tenielle Brown warned that even if UVU acted recklessly, the language of the law could preserve its immunity because the claim stems from a battery.
“Unfortunately, the Kirk family is going to have a very difficult time prevailing in a wrongful‑death case in Utah,” Brown told Fox News Digital. “The statute is phrased in such a way that says even if the state and UVU were reckless, they retain immunity in cases that arise out of a battery, and that would include gunshot wounds.”
Evidence cited by the plaintiffs
West Coast Trial Lawyers president Neama Rahmani highlighted a potentially strong piece of evidence: a text from UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long to the Kirk security team stating, “I got you covered,” after concerns were raised about rooftop access to the nearby Sorenson Center. The Sorenson Center sits directly west of the Losee Center, where prosecutors say the shooter, Tyler Robinson, fired the fatal shot.
Rahmani explained that the case may hinge on proving the university assumed a duty to protect Kirk and then failed to fulfill it. “When the government takes on a duty, that tends to be better than simply arguing that the government has a duty to protect everyone because murders happen all the time,” he said.
Historical context of the immunity shield
Brown referenced the 2005 Utah Supreme Court decision in Wagner v. Utah, which held that civil battery claims do not require intent to cause injury. She noted that most states do not have such a broad immunity provision.
She also cited the 2010 case of Mika Scott, a UVU student who sued Utah County and the sheriff’s office after a violent inmate escaped and raped her. Despite evidence of negligence, the court dismissed the claim because it arose out of a battery, illustrating how the immunity statute can block redress even in egregious situations.
Calls for legislative change
Brown suggested the Utah legislature should reconsider the statute, saying, “The court said it may not be prudent for the state to continue to retain immunity here. They are kind of signaling to the legislature that the statute should be changed to allow suits in cases like Charlie Kirk’s.”
She added that university officials, including UVU’s president and campus police chief, are not elected officials, so voters cannot hold them directly accountable at the ballot box.
University response
UVU released a brief statement confirming awareness of the notice of claim and noting that the university will address legal matters according to its established processes while continuing to support the campus community.
Charlie Kirk, 31, co‑founded Turning Point USA in 2012 and grew the organization into a prominent voice on high schools and college campuses nationwide. He leaves behind his wife, Erika Kirk, and their two young children.
What’s next?
The lawsuit will test the limits of Utah’s government‑immunity law. If the courts find the statute bars the claim, the Kirk family may need to seek legislative reform or pursue alternative legal strategies. The case underscores the tension between protecting public entities from endless litigation and ensuring victims’ families have a path to accountability.
Original reporting: Fox News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
