Utah Supreme Court Justice Faces Probe Over Redistricting Case Allegations
A sitting justice on the Utah Supreme Court is now under renewed scrutiny, as Republican state leaders move to launch an independent investigation into allegations that have raised serious questions about judicial ethics and transparency.
Justice Diana Hagen is facing claims tied to an alleged relationship with attorney David Reymann—a figure connected to a high-stakes redistricting case that reshaped the state’s congressional map. The controversy stems from a complaint filed last year, which critics argue was not fully examined during its initial review.
In response, Utah’s top Republican officials—including Gov. Spencer Cox, Senate President J. Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz—have announced plans to pursue an independent probe, citing concerns that key questions remain unanswered.
“Allegations of this nature, especially involving public officials, must be examined with transparency and accountability,” the leaders said in a joint statement. “We will move forward with an independent investigation to ensure the facts are fully examined.”
The original complaint was submitted to Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the state’s Judicial Conduct Commission. It was filed by attorney Michael Worley, who said he was acting on information provided by Hagen’s ex-husband, Tobin Hagen.
According to the complaint, Tobin Hagen alleged that text message exchanges between Justice Hagen and Reymann evolved from casual conversations into increasingly personal—and potentially inappropriate—communications. However, he did not provide copies of the alleged messages to investigators.
Worley emphasized that he had no firsthand knowledge of the claims but believed he had a professional duty to report them, citing judicial standards requiring judges to avoid both impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety.
The Judicial Conduct Commission conducted a preliminary inquiry, including an interview with Tobin Hagen, but ultimately declined to pursue a full investigation, citing insufficient evidence. Investigators noted that verifying the claims would have required subpoenas and additional legal steps, including direct interviews with Reymann and others.
That limited review is now at the center of criticism from state leaders, who argue the matter deserves a more thorough and transparent examination.
Justice Hagen has firmly denied any wrongdoing. “I never operated under a conflict of interest while performing my judicial duties,” she said, adding that she remained faithful during her marriage and took appropriate steps once concerns were raised.
She also noted that she proactively reported the matter to the Judicial Conduct Commission and submitted a sworn statement during its review. Reymann likewise rejected the allegations, stating they are false and do not reflect his conduct.
The controversy is tied to the politically charged case League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, in which the court ruled in July 2024 that lawmakers had overstepped by altering an anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative. The unanimous decision effectively handed Democrats an additional congressional seat, sparking backlash from Republican lawmakers.
The case later returned to the court on related issues, but Hagen recused herself from further proceedings in 2025. She explained that decision in a court filing, citing renewed personal contact with Reymann and another attorney connected to the litigation.
Further complicating matters, a spokesperson confirmed that the chair of the Judicial Conduct Commission—who had ties to the law firm involved—also recused herself, raising additional concerns about conflicts of interest within the oversight process.
State leaders have not yet outlined a timeline for the independent investigation or identified who will conduct it, but the move signals growing pressure for accountability within the judiciary—particularly in cases with significant political implications.
Justice Hagen, appointed to the state’s highest court in 2022 by Gov. Cox, previously served on the Utah Court of Appeals and held roles in both private practice and federal prosecution.
As the investigation moves forward, the case is likely to fuel broader debates over judicial ethics, transparency, and public trust in institutions tasked with upholding the rule of law.