A political and judicial controversy is unfolding in Utah after state leaders moved to reopen questions surrounding a state Supreme Court justice and her role in a high-stakes redistricting case that reshaped the state’s congressional map.
Republican Gov. Spencer Cox, joined by top lawmakers including Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz, ordered an independent investigation into Justice Diana Hagen following allegations raised by her ex-husband.
At issue are claims that Hagen exchanged what were described as “inappropriate” text messages with attorney David Reymann, who worked on behalf of groups challenging Utah’s Republican-drawn congressional map.
That map became the center of a major legal battle. In July 2024, the Utah Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision striking it down, a ruling that ultimately contributed to one congressional seat flipping to Democratic control ahead of the 2026 midterms. Hagen participated in that decision, placing her at the center of the current scrutiny.
The allegations surfaced through a formal complaint submitted to Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission. According to reporting from KSL, the commission conducted a preliminary review and chose not to pursue further action, effectively closing the case at that stage.
Hagen has strongly denied any wrongdoing. In a public statement, she outlined a timeline intended to counter claims of a conflict of interest. She stated that her involvement in the redistricting case ended in October 2024 and that she did not meet one-on-one with Reymann until 2025.
She also said she voluntarily recused herself from any cases involving him in May 2025, with that recusal later reflected in a court opinion. Hagen emphasized that she reported the allegations herself and cooperated with the commission’s review, which ultimately dismissed the complaint.
Details cited from the commission’s inquiry indicate that Hagen and her husband had already begun discussing divorce in September 2024 and that any interactions involving Reymann occurred later that year, with direct meetings happening only after the redistricting case had concluded.
Despite the commission’s decision, state leadership signaled that key questions remain unanswered. In a joint statement, Cox and legislative leaders argued that the prior review did not fully resolve concerns, particularly given the political impact of the court’s ruling. They framed the new investigation as necessary to ensure transparency and maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
