I cannot serve without sacrificing those I care about
After more than a quarter century on the Utah Supreme Court, Justice Diana Hagen resigned immediately following an investigation into alleged improper communications with an attorney at the center of a consequential redistricting case. Though the Judicial Conduct Commission chose not to pursue charges, Hagen determined that the personal and institutional costs of remaining were too great — her family's privacy and the court's independence both hanging in the balance. Her departure arrives at a fraught moment, as redistricting battles continue to shape Utah's political landscape and Governor Spencer Cox must now choose who will fill her seat.
- An investigation into alleged inappropriate text messages between a sitting Supreme Court justice and a redistricting attorney thrust a deeply personal unraveling — the end of a thirty-year marriage — into the glare of public scrutiny.
- The complaint originated not from a civic watchdog but from her ex-husband's own attorney, sharpening the tension between private dissolution and public accountability.
- Hagen moved proactively — recusing herself from all cases involving the attorney as early as May 2025 — yet found those precautions insufficient to quiet the controversy or protect those she loved.
- The Judicial Conduct Commission completed its preliminary inquiry and declined to file charges, yet Hagen resigned anyway, signaling that institutional vindication and personal peace are not always the same thing.
- Governor Cox must now appoint a replacement to a court already navigating live redistricting disputes, meaning one justice's private crisis will ripple outward into Utah's political and legal future.
Diana Hagen resigned from the Utah Supreme Court on Friday, ending a tenure of more than twenty-six years. The departure came without warning, prompted by an investigation into allegations that she had exchanged inappropriate messages with David Reymann, an attorney representing progressive voting rights groups in a high-profile redistricting case challenging a congressional map that preserved four Republican seats in Utah.
In her resignation letter to Governor Spencer Cox, Hagen drew a careful distinction between the sacrifices public service demands of those who choose it and the costs it imposes on those who do not. The dissolution of her thirty-year marriage, she argued, should not become public property simply because she held judicial office. The complaint had been filed by her ex-husband's attorney with Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission — a body of lawmakers, judges, and citizens — which conducted a preliminary inquiry but ultimately declined to pursue charges.
Hagen had already taken steps to manage the conflict. She last participated in the redistricting case in October 2024, voluntarily recused herself from all of Reymann's cases in May 2025, and described her conduct as prompt and transparent. Both she and Reymann denied the underlying allegations.
Still, she concluded that staying would cost too much — her family's privacy, and the court's independence. Her resignation took effect immediately, leaving Governor Cox to appoint her successor at a moment when redistricting disputes continue to define Utah's political terrain.
Diana Hagen stepped down from the Utah Supreme Court on Friday, ending a tenure that spanned more than a quarter century. Her departure came swiftly, without warning, in the wake of an investigation into allegations that she had exchanged inappropriate messages with an attorney involved in a high-stakes redistricting case. The lawyer in question, David Reymann, had represented progressive voting rights groups challenging a congressional map that favored Republicans and preserved four GOP seats in Utah.
Hagen's resignation letter, addressed to Governor Spencer Cox, acknowledged the weight of public service but drew a careful line between what she could bear and what her family could endure. She had served as a public servant for twenty-six years, she wrote, and understood that such work demanded sacrifice—her own sacrifice. Yet she also recognized that those close to her had made no such choice. The dissolution of her thirty-year marriage, she argued, should not become fodder for public examination simply because she held judicial office.
The complaint that triggered the investigation came from her ex-husband's attorney, who filed it with Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission. The allegation centered on text messages Hagen allegedly sent to Reymann. Both Hagen and Reymann denied the accusations. The Judicial Conduct Commission, an independent body composed of state lawmakers, judges, and members of the public, conducted a preliminary inquiry but ultimately decided not to pursue the matter further.
Hagen had already taken steps to distance herself from the controversy. Her last involvement in the redistricting case dated to October 2024. In May 2025, she voluntarily recused herself from all cases involving Reymann. That recusal appeared in the court's September 15, 2025 opinion in the League of Women Voters case. In a statement issued in April, before her resignation, she described these actions as "prompt, prudent, and transparent" responses to her ex-husband's allegations.
Yet despite these precautions, Hagen concluded that remaining on the bench would exact too high a cost. She could not continue, she wrote, without sacrificing the privacy and well-being of those she loved and without compromising the effective functioning and independence of Utah's judiciary itself. The resignation took effect immediately. Governor Cox now faces the task of appointing her successor, a decision that will reshape the court's composition at a moment when redistricting disputes continue to roil state politics.
Citas Notables
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— Justice Diana Hagen, in her resignation letter
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did she resign if the Judicial Conduct Commission decided not to pursue the case?
Because the investigation itself—the public airing of it, the allegations, the scrutiny—had already done the damage. She could recuse herself from cases, but she couldn't recuse herself from being a public figure whose private life was now under examination.
So this was about protecting her family, not about guilt or innocence?
That's what her letter suggests. She's saying the cost to the people around her—her children, her friends—was too high, regardless of what the investigation concluded.
But she denied the allegations. Why not fight it out?
Fighting it out means more headlines, more details about her marriage, more time in the spotlight. At a certain point, the fight itself becomes the harm.
Does her resignation imply anything about what actually happened between her and Reymann?
Not necessarily. It implies that whether it happened or not, the public process of investigating it was incompatible with her ability to serve effectively. That's a different question than guilt.
Who picks her replacement?
Governor Cox. And that matters because the court's composition shifts at a moment when redistricting cases are still live issues in Utah politics.