The integrity and impartiality of the judiciary are cornerstones of a healthy democracy, and the allegations surrounding Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen threaten to cast a significant cloud over the state’s highest court. Governor Spencer Cox, along with other key state lawmakers, publicly demanded an independent investigation into Justice Hagen’s alleged relationship with David Reymann, an attorney who was central to a fiercely debated statewide redistricting case. This move underscores a serious concern regarding potential ethical breaches and conflicts of interest.
The controversy centers on accusations that Justice Hagen communicated with Mr. Reymann via text messages that her ex-husband described as ‘inappropriate.’ Mr. Reymann’s work provided critical legal challenges to a redistricting plan that was favored by Republicans and maintained a distinct political advantage through four red congressional seats in Utah. The stakes in this case were exceptionally high, as the resulting ruling from the court in July 2024 led to a significant shift, including one of the key seats potentially flipping to the blue party in preparation for the 2026 midterm elections. The public sensitivity surrounding election maps only heightens the scrutiny on judicial conduct.
Adding layers of complexity, the initial complaint was filed by a lawyer representing Justice Hagen’s ex-husband and was submitted to both Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission. While the Judicial Conduct Commission had initially conducted a preliminary review and chose not to pursue the matter further, the gravity of the public interest, coupled with the politicized nature of the redistricting ruling, prompted Governor Cox, flanked by Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz, to push for a more rigorous and transparent external review. They argued that the existing review mechanisms left ‘important questions unresolved,’ necessitating accountability to maintain public trust.
In response to the intensifying scrutiny, Justice Hagen issued a public statement on Friday afternoon attempting to mitigate the damage. She emphatically denied any conflict of interest, asserting that her last major involvement in the redistricting case was in October 2024. Furthermore, she highlighted specific measures she had taken to maintain ethical distance, including her voluntary recusal from all cases involving Mr. Reymann in May 2025, a recusal that was officially noted in the Court’s formal September 15, 2025 opinion concerning the League of Women Voters. She also confirmed that she proactively reported the allegations to the Judicial Conduct Commission and submitted a sworn statement, asserting that the Commission had since reviewed and dismissed the complaint entirely, thereby reaffirming her commitment to the highest standards of judicial integrity.
However, details presented by local outlets and subsequent reporting revealed that the interactions between Hagen, Reymann, and even discussions of divorce between Hagen and her husband had occurred over an extended period, pre-dating her publicly stated recusal dates. These details added substantial fuel to the fire, maintaining the political pressure on the state’s leaders to ensure that the judicial process remains impervious to the appearance, let alone the reality, of bias.