Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen resigned immediately on May 8, 2026, dodging a state investigation into alleged text messages hinting at an affair with a lawyer challenging Republican redistricting maps.[1][4]
Story Snapshot
- Ex-husband accused Hagen of inappropriate texts with attorney David Reymann during marriage breakdown, prompting a December 2025 complaint.[1][4]
- Judicial Conduct Commission dismissed the complaint after investigation, but state leaders demanded deeper probe.[1][3][5]
- Hagen denied wrongdoing, recused from Reymann’s cases in May 2025, and quit to shield family privacy.[1][5]
- Leaders dropped investigation post-resignation, pivoting to Judicial Conduct Commission reforms.[1][3]
- Case exposes tensions in Utah’s redistricting battles and judicial ethics enforcement.[4][5]
Allegations Emerge from Personal Turmoil
Hagen’s ex-husband spotted text messages between her and David Reymann, lead attorney for progressive groups in Utah’s redistricting lawsuit against Republican maps. He described texts shifting from silly to suggestive as their 30-year marriage crumbled. A Provo attorney filed the December 2025 complaint with Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission.[1][4]
Reymann represented the League of Women Voters, arguing new maps illegally preserved four Republican congressional seats. Hagen’s potential ties raised conflict fears, despite her October 2024 exit from the case. Both Hagen and Reymann denied any improper relationship.[1][4][5]
Judicial Conduct Commission Dismisses Complaint
The Judicial Conduct Commission launched an independent review and dismissed the complaint, finding insufficient basis. Hagen voluntarily updated her recusal list in May 2025 after reconnecting with old friends, including Reymann, in spring 2025. The court’s September 15, 2025, opinion reflected her recusal.[5]
State leaders—Governor Spencer Cox, Senate President J. Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz—pushed for further scrutiny in April 2026. They cited “serious questions” about external relationships in politically charged litigation.[3][5]
Resignation Letter Cites Family Privacy
On May 8, 2026, Hagen sent her resignation to Governor Cox, effective immediately. She expressed deep sadness, praised colleagues, and affirmed upholding her oath. Hagen prioritized family well-being over continued service, avoiding public dissection of her divorce.[1][3]
Governor Cox’s office thanked her for years of service. Legislative leaders welcomed the step, calling it in the institution’s best interest.[1]
This important court resignation could have major implications in the battle over redistricting in Utah.
Justice Diana Hagen resigned from the Utah Supreme Court. Governor Cox, along with House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President J. Stuart Adams announced an investigation…
— Don Palmer (@VotingGuy) May 9, 2026
Leaders Halt Probe and Eye Reforms
A joint statement from Chief Justice Durrant, Governor Cox, Adams, and Schultz declared the matter concluded, ending further investigations. They committed all three branches to reforming the Judicial Conduct Commission for greater accountability and public trust.[1][3][5]
This pivot sidesteps specifics, fueling debate on whether reforms address evidentiary gaps like unreleased texts or ex-husband testimony.[1][5]
Redistricting Context Amplifies Scrutiny
Utah’s redistricting fight pitted conservatives against progressive challengers. Reymann’s role targeted Republican advantages, making any Hagen link explosive. Her recusal predated allegations, but timing invites questions on influence.[4][5]
From a conservative lens, common sense demands transparency in high-stakes cases. Dismissals without public evidence erode trust, even if leaders now close the book. Reforms could enforce stricter recusal disclosures, aligning with accountability values.[3][5]
Broader Implications for Judicial Ethics
Hagen joined the court in 2022, facing retention this fall. Her exit disrupts proceedings, spotlighting ethics in personal ties. Nationally, similar complaints often falter on proof, favoring recusals over discipline.[1][3]
Utah’s case tests if reforms will mandate forensic reviews or public records, preventing future shadows over rulings. Readers ponder: Does privacy trump scrutiny for those wielding judicial power?[1][5]
Sources:
[1] Utah Supreme Court justice resigns ahead of investigation into alleged relationship
[3] Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen resigns from bench after questions on relationships
[4] Utah Supreme Court justice resigns amid probe into alleged relationship with redistricting attorney
[5] Diana Hagen Resignation Shocks Utah Judiciary as Supreme Court Justice Steps Down Amid Investigation
