Utah’s legal and political circles were shaken last week after Diana Hagen resigned from the Utah Supreme Court amid controversy surrounding allegations of an inappropriate relationship with attorney David Reymann, a lawyer connected to one of the country’s most politically contentious redistricting battles.
The resignation followed growing pressure from state leaders, who announced plans for an independent investigation into the allegations despite an earlier decision by the Judicial Conduct Commission not to pursue formal disciplinary action.
The controversy has fueled a broader debate over judicial ethics, public trust, political accountability, and the increasingly intense fight over congressional redistricting. The case has drawn particular attention in Utah, where both the state supreme court and a federal court previously allowed a judge-approved congressional map that created a Democrat-leaning district centered around Salt Lake City.
Who Is Justice Diana Hagen?
Justice Diana Hagen served on the Utah Supreme Court after being appointed by Republican Gov. Spencer Cox. Before joining the state’s highest court, Hagen built a long legal career spanning more than two decades in public service.
Known for her work on constitutional and appellate issues, Hagen became part of a high-profile ruling involving Utah’s controversial congressional redistricting maps. The court’s decision played a significant role in reshaping political representation in the state.
“As a public servant for twenty-six years, I am keenly aware that public service requires sacrifice,” Hagen wrote in her resignation letter. “I have willingly accepted those sacrifices for the privilege of holding a position of public trust, where I could do my part to uphold the rule of law and protect the constitutional rights of every Utahn.”
“I also understand that public officials are rightly held to a higher standard and must accept a greater degree of public scrutiny and diminished privacy,” she continued. “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.”
The resignation became effective immediately.
The allegations originated from Hagen’s former husband, who reportedly claimed he discovered “inappropriate” text messages between Hagen and Reymann during the collapse of their marriage.
According to reporting from KSL:
- The messages allegedly began as casual conversations.
- The exchanges later became “more suggestive.”
- No physical affair was publicly substantiated.
- Both Hagen and Reymann strongly denied wrongdoing.
The complaint was submitted to both Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and Utah’s Judicial Conduct Commission.
Judicial Conduct Commission Declined Further Action
After conducting a preliminary review, the Judicial Conduct Commission reportedly decided not to pursue the matter further. However, that decision did not satisfy Utah’s top Republican leaders.
Gov. Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz later announced plans for an independent investigation, saying unresolved questions remained.
Their statement emphasized the importance of public confidence in the judiciary:
“Allegations of this nature, especially involving public officials, must be examined with transparency and accountability.”
Hagen stated she chose to step down to protect her family’s privacy and preserve confidence in Utah’s judicial system.
Why Redistricting Became So Controversial
Utah’s redistricting battle centered on a congressional map approved by the Republican-controlled legislature following the passage of the 2018 Proposition 4 initiative, which sought to establish an independent and nonpartisan redistricting process.
Despite the initiative, state lawmakers ultimately adopted district lines that preserved four Republican-leaning congressional seats, even as parts of Utah experienced rapid population growth and shifting political demographics. Critics argued the final map undermined the spirit of Proposition 4 by maintaining Republican advantages in all four districts.
Progressive voting rights groups challenged the maps in court, arguing they diluted the voting strength of urban and Democratic-leaning communities, particularly in and around Salt Lake City.
Hagen participated in judicial proceedings connected to the litigation before later recusing herself from cases involving attorney Reymann. Her last involvement in the redistricting case occurred in October 2024.
Political Stakes Were Enormous
The case carried major national implications because congressional district boundaries can dramatically influence election outcomes and the balance of power in Washington.
The ruling ultimately helped create a congressional district that quickly became viewed as a safe Democratic seat heading into the 2026 midterm elections. Less than two years earlier, the district had favored former Vice President Kamala Harris by roughly 20 points, highlighting just how significantly the court-approved map altered Utah’s political landscape — even in a state long considered reliably Republican.
The broader debate over gerrymandering has become a recurring national issue, with both major political parties accused of drawing districts to maximize electoral advantage.
What Happens Next?
Cox will now appoint a replacement to the Utah Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, questions remain about whether independent investigators will continue examining the allegations despite Hagen’s resignation.
The controversy may also prompt renewed discussions about:
- Judicial disclosure requirements
- Recusal standards
- Oversight procedures
- Public transparency in ethics investigations
The case is likely to remain a major talking point in Utah politics and could shape future debates over transparency, recusal rules, and judicial accountability nationwide.
READ NEXT: Red State Redistricting Fight Descends Into Madness
