Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen is facing an investigation by state leaders over allegations involving a relationship with an attorney connected to a major redistricting case. The probe follows a complaint submitted last year regarding her conduct during ongoing litigation before the court.
Gov. Spencer Cox, Senate President J. Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz said they will move forward with an independent review. They cited concerns that the initial handling of the complaint left unresolved questions, KSL reported.
The allegations were outlined in a complaint submitted to Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission. The complaint referenced claims that Hagen exchanged inappropriate messages with attorney David Reymann, who argued the redistricting case that handed Democrats another congressional seat. The complaint was filed by attorney Michael Worley after he said he received the allegations from Hagen’s ex-husband, Tobin Hagen. Worley said he believed his professional obligations required him to report the information to authorities. Worley said he had no independent knowledge of the claims beyond what he was told.
Investigation Details and Initial Review
He cited judicial conduct rules requiring judges to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. According to the complaint, Tobin Hagen alleged that text messages between the justice and Reymann became increasingly personal over time. He said the messages began as casual exchanges before becoming more suggestive. Tobin Hagen told investigators he discovered the messages in early 2025. He did not provide copies of the messages to the Judicial Conduct Commission.
The commission conducted a preliminary review and interviewed Tobin Hagen as part of its process. It ultimately declined to pursue a full investigation, citing insufficient evidence. Investigators said additional steps could have included interviewing Reymann and other individuals. They also noted that obtaining the alleged messages would have required subpoenas and further legal action.
In a joint statement, Cox, Adams and Schultz said the initial review did not fully resolve the concerns.
