Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen stepped down effective immediately on May 8, 2026, just as Gov. Spencer Cox and state legislative leaders were preparing to launch an independent investigation into allegations she carried on a relationship with an attorney who argued a major redistricting case before her court.
The resignation cut short what was shaping up to be a bruising public inquiry. Hagen submitted her letter directly to Cox, writing that she could no longer serve “without sacrificing the privacy and well-being of those I care about and the effective functioning and independence of Utah’s judiciary.”
The controversy centers on attorney David Reymann, who represented progressive voting rights groups in a lawsuit challenging Utah’s congressional map, a Republican-drawn map that maintained four red seats. Reymann was named in a complaint alleging “inappropriate” text messages between him and Hagen, Fox News Digital reported. The complaint was filed by an attorney for Hagen’s then-husband and submitted to Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the state’s Judicial Conduct Commission.
Hagen said her last involvement in the redistricting case was October 2024. She stated she voluntarily recused herself from all cases involving Reymann in May 2025. That recusal, she said, was reflected in the court’s September 15, 2025, opinion in the League of Women Voters case.
But the gap matters. Between October 2024 and May 2025, months passed during which Hagen apparently participated in court business while the alleged relationship with Reymann was either ongoing or recently concluded, and while Reymann had cases before her court. Hagen’s own account does not explain what changed between those two dates to trigger the recusal.
The Judicial Conduct Commission, described as an independent body made up of state lawmakers, judges, and members of the public, conducted a preliminary investigation based on the complaint and chose not to pursue the matter further, local outlet KSL reported. That decision did not satisfy state leaders. Cox and legislative leaders announced a broader investigation, signaling they believed the commission’s review was insufficient.
Hagen resigned before that investigation could get underway. In a pattern familiar to anyone who follows judicial transparency fights in Utah, the resignation shifted attention away from the underlying facts and toward questions about the system itself.
In April, the Utah Supreme Court issued a statement on Hagen’s behalf in which she said she had taken “prompt, prudent, and transparent steps” in response to the allegations raised by her ex-husband. Both Hagen and Reymann previously denied the allegations.
Her resignation letter leaned heavily on the personal toll. Hagen, who cited twenty-six years of public service, acknowledged that officials “are rightly held to a higher standard and must accept a greater degree of public scrutiny and diminished privacy.”
Then she drew a line, as KSL reported:
“But my family and friends did not choose public life. They do not deserve to have intensely personal details surrounding the painful dissolution of my thirty-year marriage subjected to public scrutiny.”
That framing, casting the probe as an invasion of her family’s privacy, may earn sympathy. But it sidesteps the core concern. The question was never whether a justice’s divorce is anyone else’s business. The question is whether a justice had an undisclosed relationship with a lawyer who was actively litigating one of the most consequential cases on the court’s docket.
The lawsuit in question was no minor procedural dispute. Reymann, working on behalf of progressive voting rights groups, helped challenge a Republican-friendly congressional map. Just The News reported that the controversy involved a 2024 ruling in which Hagen struck down a state constitutional amendment that would have allowed lawmakers to repeal ballot initiatives.
That ruling had direct implications for the balance of power between Utah’s legislature and the courts. If Hagen was involved in deciding a case while maintaining an undisclosed personal relationship with one of the attorneys arguing it, the integrity of the outcome is legitimately in question, regardless of the legal merits.
Courts have long held that the appearance of impartiality is as important as actual impartiality. A judge who fails to disclose a relationship with counsel doesn’t merely create a bad look. She undermines the foundation of the adversarial system. Every litigant who appeared before Hagen during the period in question is entitled to wonder whether they received a fair hearing.
The broader issue of courts holding their own members accountable is one that transcends any single state. When the legal establishment polices itself, the public watches closely, and the public has reason to be skeptical.
House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams issued a joint statement that was polite but pointed. “We appreciate Justice Hagen’s resignation and her willingness to step aside in the best interest of the institution,” they said. The phrasing was diplomatic. The message was clear: the institution needed her gone.
KSL reported that Hagen’s departure shifted legislative attention toward possible reforms to the Judicial Conduct Commission itself, a tacit acknowledgment that the commission’s earlier decision to drop the matter did not inspire confidence.
Gov. Cox confirmed the resignation in a brief statement: “Today, Gov. Cox received a letter of resignation from Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen. The resignation is effective immediately.” Cox will now be tasked with naming her replacement.
Hagen’s resignation closes one chapter but leaves several questions unresolved. The exact nature of the alleged relationship beyond the reference to “inappropriate” text messages has not been publicly detailed. The full text of the resignation letter has not been released. And the Judicial Conduct Commission’s reasoning for declining to pursue the complaint further remains opaque.
Most importantly, no one has publicly addressed whether the redistricting ruling itself, or any other decision Hagen participated in while Reymann had cases before the court, should be revisited. In cases where judicial integrity comes under serious question, the downstream consequences for decided cases can be significant.
The Judicial Conduct Commission’s website describes it as independent. But independence means little if the body lacks the will to act when the facts demand it. That the governor and legislative leaders felt compelled to announce their own investigation suggests the commission’s preliminary review fell short.
Hagen wrote that she would have loved to continue serving. She described her career as one devoted to “uphold the rule of law and protect the constitutional rights of every Utahn.” Those are fine words. But the rule of law depends on judges who disclose conflicts, not judges who wait months to recuse and then resign when the questions get too loud.
The people of Utah, and the litigants who appeared before Justice Hagen, deserved better. Whether the system that let this situation develop will actually be reformed, or whether Hagen’s resignation will simply make the whole thing go away, is now the question that matters most. Utahns who care about the integrity of their courts and their redistricting process should not let it drop.
When a judge quits to avoid an investigation, the investigation isn’t over. It’s just getting started, or it should be.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.