Republican Gov. Spencer Cox and Utah's top two legislative leaders launched an independent investigation Friday into Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen, citing unresolved questions about her alleged relationship with an attorney who argued a landmark redistricting case before the court.
The move came after the state's Judicial Conduct Commission ended a preliminary review without taking action, a result that Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz said left too many questions on the table. Hagen, whom Cox himself appointed to the bench, now faces a second round of scrutiny over allegations that first surfaced from her ex-husband.
At the center of the matter is attorney David Reymann, who represented progressive voting rights groups challenging a Republican-drawn congressional map. The Utah Supreme Court ruled unanimously in July 2024 to throw out that map, which had maintained four red congressional seats. One of those seats flipped blue in time for the 2026 midterms, Fox News Digital reported, a political consequence that makes the integrity of the underlying ruling a matter of real public interest.
The allegations trace back to a complaint filed by Hagen's ex-husband, who claimed the justice exchanged "inappropriate" text messages with Reymann while the redistricting case was still before the court. The complaint was submitted to Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission, the Washington Examiner reported. Reymann has denied the allegations.
KSL, the Utah news outlet that broke key details of the complaint, reported that the Judicial Conduct Commission's preliminary investigation found that Hagen and her husband began discussing divorce in September 2024. Toward the end of that year, Hagen and her husband had interacted together with Reymann. Hagen did not meet one-on-one with Reymann until 2025, KSL reported.
Hagen has maintained she never had a conflict of interest. In a public statement issued Friday afternoon through the Utah Supreme Court, she laid out her version of events.
"My last involvement in the redistricting case was October 2024. 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."
She went further, insisting she had handled the matter properly from the start. Hagen said she reported the allegations to the Judicial Conduct Commission herself and submitted a sworn statement.
"I took prompt, prudent, and transparent steps in response to the allegations made by my ex-husband, including reporting them myself to the Judicial Conduct Commission and submitting a sworn statement. The Judicial Conduct Commission recently reviewed the matter, dismissed the complaint, and closed the case. I remain committed to upholding the highest standards of judicial ethics, integrity, and impartiality."
If Hagen expected the Judicial Conduct Commission's dismissal to end the story, she miscalculated. Cox, Adams, and Schultz issued a joint statement making clear they viewed the commission's work as incomplete, not exonerating.
"An initial review by the Judicial Conduct Commission and the court left important questions unresolved. Allegations of this nature, especially involving public officials, must be examined with transparency and accountability to establish the facts and to maintain public confidence."
The Judicial Conduct Commission is described on its own website as an independent body comprising several state lawmakers, judges, and members of the public. That it chose not to pursue the matter further does not, in the governor's view, settle whether the justice's conduct met the ethical standard the public has a right to expect.
The question of judicial ethics has become increasingly prominent across the country. Calls for scrutiny of Supreme Court justices' off-bench conduct have come from both sides of the aisle in recent years, though the standards applied often seem to shift depending on who is under the microscope.
What makes the Utah case particularly charged is the political weight of the decision at its center. The redistricting ruling didn't just settle a legal question, it reshaped the state's congressional landscape. Reymann represented plaintiffs who challenged the legislature's attempt to override Proposition 4, a ballot initiative. The court sided unanimously with the challengers, and the downstream result was the loss of a Republican-held seat.
For Utah Republicans, the stakes are plain. If a justice who participated in that ruling had an undisclosed personal connection to one of the attorneys driving the case, the legitimacy of the outcome is in question. That is not a partisan complaint. It is a basic expectation of judicial impartiality.
Several critical details remain unclear. The specific content of the allegedly inappropriate text messages has not been made public. The exact ethical rule or judicial canon Hagen is alleged to have violated has not been identified in available reporting. And the identity of whoever will conduct the new independent investigation has not been disclosed.
Hagen's timeline, that her last involvement in the redistricting case was October 2024, and that she did not meet Reymann one-on-one until 2025, is key to her defense. But the governor and legislative leaders clearly believe those assertions need independent verification, not just the justice's own sworn statement.
Fox News Digital reported it reached out to a representative for the Utah Supreme Court, to Reymann, and to the Judicial Conduct Commission for comment. The broader political context around the nation's courts continues to intensify, with ongoing speculation about Supreme Court retirements and the battles that follow them keeping judicial conduct in the national spotlight.
One detail worth noting: Cox appointed Hagen to the bench. That he is now ordering an investigation into her conduct is not a sign of political opportunism, it is a sign that the allegations are serious enough to override any institutional loyalty. When a governor investigates his own appointee, the public should take that as a signal, not dismiss it.
The redistricting ruling already carried enormous political consequences. If the investigation reveals that a justice who participated in that ruling had an improper relationship with the attorney who argued it, the fallout will extend far beyond one seat in Congress. It will raise questions about whether the court's decision should stand at all.
Judicial integrity is not a partisan value. But it is a value that demands more than a quiet dismissal by a commission and a statement from the accused. When similar questions have arisen at the federal level, lawmakers have rightly demanded transparency. Utah's Republican leaders are doing the same.
The political dynamics around the courts show no signs of cooling. Senate Republicans are already eyeing the midterm clock as they navigate potential Supreme Court vacancies, and every question about judicial impartiality feeds into a larger national debate about whether the courts can be trusted to apply the law without a thumb on the scale.
Hagen says the case is closed. Cox, Adams, and Schultz say it isn't. One of those positions will hold up. The other won't.
When a court ruling flips a congressional seat and the judge who cast the vote may have had an undisclosed relationship with the winning lawyer, "trust us" is not good enough. Transparency is.