Are there ongoing legal cases or official investigations related to the claims about Erika Kirk?

1. Criminal case: a protective order and formal charges in the shooting

A Utah judge issued a pretrial protective order barring the accused shooter, Tyler Robinson, from contacting Erika Kirk; that ruling came the same day Robinson was formally charged with aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, violent offense in the presence of a child and other counts ^[1]. Reporting also notes that Robinson’s defense and Utah law enforcement have asked for limits on courtroom cameras, an application Erika Kirk has publicly opposed ^{[2] [6]}.

2. Prosecutors and investigators: local charges plus FBI involvement reported

Media coverage shows local prosecutors filed multiple criminal counts against the suspect in the fatal shooting and that the case has drawn broader investigatory attention; outlets report that family representatives requested privacy while investigators — including federal agents in some accounts — examined possible accomplices and digital signals, though motive has not been publicly confirmed ^{[1] [7]}. Available sources do not give a final investigative conclusion and say the suspect remains in custody pending further proceedings ^[1].

3. Civil litigation possibilities: commentary about wrongful‑death suits

Legal commentators have discussed whether a surviving spouse could bring a wrongful‑death or negligence lawsuit against the shooter or others (for example, parties who might have supplied or stored a weapon), and legal analysis notes that a civil action would be separate from criminal prosecution under Utah law ^[3]. That reporting frames civil claims as a possible pathway but does not document any filed civil suit by Erika Kirk as of the items cited ^[3].

4. Courtroom transparency fight: cameras vs. protections

There is an ongoing dispute over courtroom access: defense counsel and Utah law enforcement sought to limit media coverage and ban cameras during court proceedings, citing fair‑trial concerns, while Erika Kirk has publicly urged cameras in the courtroom for transparency; a judge declined to rule immediately on the camera request in the reported item ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Conspiracy allegations and fact‑checking: multiple claims debunked

Since the shooting, a wave of conspiracy claims has circulated linking Erika Kirk to trafficking, foreign intelligence plots, or other misconduct. Fact‑checking organizations (PolitiFact, Snopes, AP referenced in coverage) have found no evidence connecting Israel, the Mossad, or Erika Kirk’s charity to child‑trafficking or to the shooting; outlets explicitly say those particular conspiracy claims are unsupported by verifiable records ^{[4] [5]}. Snopes has also cataloged and investigated many rumors about Erika Kirk ^[5].

6. New, high‑profile claims and potential defamation/legal threats

Recent high‑visibility claims — for example, social posts and commentary by figures like Candace Owens alleging suspicious flight overlaps involving Egyptian planes and Erika Kirk — have prompted media writeups and speculation, and some outlets have reported rumors that Erika Kirk might consider suing over such claims; the reporting notes these are current allegations and that Erika Kirk has not publicly commented on some specific conspiracy threads ^{[7] [8]}. Available sources do not confirm any filed lawsuit against Owens or others over those claims ^{[7] [8]}.

7. What reporting does not show (limitations)

Publicly available reporting in these sources does not document a civil lawsuit actually filed by Erika Kirk against the shooter’s family or third parties as of the cited items — legal analysis speculates she could sue, but no filing is shown ^[3]. Likewise, while fact‑checkers have debunked multiple conspiracies, the sources do not provide a final public accounting of the full scope of any federal probe; they report FBI involvement in parts of the inquiry but do not disclose investigative conclusions ^{[4] [7]}.

Conclusion — the record in current reporting is twofold: there is an active criminal prosecution with judicial orders protecting Erika Kirk (and ongoing procedural battles over courtroom transparency), and there is a concurrent information war of conspiracies and fact‑checks. Established outlets and fact‑checkers say several viral allegations about Erika Kirk are unsupported; legal commentators say civil suits are possible but do not show filings in the cited reporting ^{[1] [2] [4] [3] [5]}.