Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen resigned immediately amid an investigation into an alleged relationship with an attorney involved in a high-profile redistricting challenge, saying the scrutiny has become too heavy on the people she loves and the work of the court. Her departure leaves the governor with a vacancy and raises fresh questions about judicial conduct, recusals and public confidence in how sensitive cases are handled. Republicans and conservatives watching the maps fight will expect a swift, transparent process for naming a successor who respects both the rule of law and public trust.
Hagen framed her decision around the personal cost of public service and the collateral damage to family and friends. “As a public servant for twenty-six years, I am keenly aware that public service requires sacrifice,” Hagen wrote. “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.”
The resignation came after allegations from her former husband claiming inappropriate texts with attorney David Reymann, who represented progressive voting rights groups in a challenge to Utah’s congressional map. Those claims led to an inquiry and drew immediate political attention because the disputed litigation involved a map that preserved multiple GOP seats. Hagen and Reymann have both denied the accusations, but the optics proved damaging enough to force her exit.
The Judicial Conduct Commission carried out a preliminary look at the complaint and reportedly did not move forward with formal charges, which only deepened the debate about standards and oversight. Conservatives want clear answers on what the commission reviewed and why it declined to escalate the probe. Transparency matters when a judge who declined to participate in certain cases does so at the center of a politically charged dispute over representation in Congress.
Hagen said she had taken steps to avoid conflicts, noting when she last touched the redistricting matter. “My last involvement in the redistricting case was October 2024,” she wrote. “I voluntarily recused myself from all cases involving Mr. Reymann in May 2025, and my recusal was reflected in the Court’s September 15, 2025, opinion in League of Women Voters.”
Even with recusal, the damage to public confidence can linger, especially when questions swirl about private conduct and public duties. Republicans arguing for stronger judicial accountability will point to this episode as a reminder that judges must be above reproach, not merely legally compliant. The appointment that follows must restore trust, not deepen partisan doubts about the process or the outcomes it produces.
In her letter Hagen acknowledged both the burden of office and the unfairness to private people caught up in public controversy. “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 said. “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.”
Governor Spencer Cox now has the responsibility of naming a replacement to the Utah Supreme Court, a choice that will carry political weight as well as legal consequences. Republican leaders and voters will want a nominee who champions judicial restraint, respects state law, and brings clear integrity to the bench. The selection process should be open and fast, because prolonged uncertainty breeds distrust in both parties and the courts themselves.
Hagen made clear she would have preferred to stay on the court, but said the cost to loved ones and the court’s functioning was too high. “But I cannot do so without sacrificing the privacy and well-being of those I care about and the effective functioning and independence of Utah’s judiciary,” she wrote. The resignation ends her tenure immediately and starts a new chapter in a dispute that began as a fight over lines on a map and widened into a debate over ethics and accountability.
