A Justice Forced Out: How Utah's Redistricting Wars Consumed the State Supreme Court

Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen resigned from the bench on May 8, 2026, three weeks after the state's governor and top Republican legislative leaders announced they would launch their own investigation into allegations that she had an improper personal relationship with an attorney involved in the state's high-profile redistricting litigation [1]. The Judicial Conduct Commission — the constitutionally designated body for handling such complaints — had already investigated and dismissed the allegations months earlier, finding them "speculative, overstated, and misleading" [2]. Hagen's departure leaves Governor Spencer Cox with three vacancies to fill on a court the legislature recently expanded from five to seven seats [3].

The case has become a flashpoint in the national debate over judicial independence, mixing questions of personal ethics, partisan mapmaking, and the balance of power between branches of government.

The Redistricting Case That Started It All

The backdrop to Hagen's resignation is League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, the most consequential legal battle in Utah politics in years. In 2018, Utah voters passed Proposition 4, an anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative. The Republican-controlled legislature later repealed and replaced its key provisions. Voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, sued [4].

In July 2024, the Utah Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling — authored by Hagen — finding that the legislature had overstepped its authority by dismantling voter-approved redistricting reforms. The decision held that voters have a fundamental right to "reform or alter" their government through the initiative process, and the legislature could not simply override that right [5].

The ruling sent the case back to a trial court, where Third District Judge Dianna Gibson in November 2024 struck down the legislature's congressional map as a partisan gerrymander. Gibson ordered a new map proposed by the plaintiffs, which kept Salt Lake County largely intact rather than splitting it among all four congressional districts. The new map created one district likely to elect a Democrat and three Republican-leaning seats — replacing four reliably Republican districts [6].

Republicans appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, which in February 2026 rejected the appeal on procedural grounds [7]. A separate federal court challenge, backed by two Republican members of Utah's congressional delegation, also failed [8]. The court-ordered map will be used for the 2026 midterm elections — the first Utah congressional elections in over a decade held under maps without a strong partisan tilt [4].

Source: Utah Courts / News Reports

Data as of May 9, 2026CSV

The Complaint and Its Origins

In December 2025, a Provo-based attorney filed a complaint with both Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission alleging that Hagen had engaged in an improper relationship with David Reymann, one of the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs in the redistricting lawsuit [1]. Reymann's firm, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, had argued before the court on behalf of the League of Women Voters and allied groups.

The complaint was based almost entirely on allegations made by Hagen's ex-husband, Tobin Hagen, who told the complaining attorney that he had discovered "inappropriate text messages" between the justice and Reymann in February 2025. Tobin Hagen described the messages as starting "silly" and becoming "more suggestive" [9].

Hagen acknowledged attending a social gathering at Reymann's home on November 3, 2024 — less than two weeks after authoring the Amendment D opinion — with her then-husband present. She also said she and Tobin Hagen sat with Reymann at the Salt Lake County Bar holiday party in December 2024 [9]. According to Hagen, she had suggested divorce in September 2024, and the couple separated in April 2025. She said she met Reymann one-on-one for the first time in years in March 2025, describing it as catching up with an old friend [9].

In May 2025, Hagen voluntarily recused herself from all cases involving Reymann. Her recusal was reflected in the court's September 15, 2025 opinion in the redistricting case, which she did not participate in [1]. Both Hagen and Reymann have denied that the relationship was romantic or sexual [10].

The Judicial Conduct Commission's Dismissal

The Judicial Conduct Commission, a constitutionally established body with jurisdiction over judicial ethics complaints in Utah, conducted a preliminary investigation. Its staff investigator concluded that the allegations were "speculative, overstated, and misleading" and that "there is very little credibility to this complaint" [2]. The commission's bipartisan members voted to dismiss the case without pursuing a full investigation [2].

Under Utah law, JCC proceedings are confidential. The commission's findings and the underlying complaint are classified as private records, and disclosing them is a class B misdemeanor [11].

The Leak and Political Escalation

The complaint did not stay confidential. In April 2026, the Utah House of Representatives released the preliminary investigation file to multiple news outlets, including KSL and The Salt Lake Tribune, in response to Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) requests [11]. Both the Utah Supreme Court and the JCC condemned the release as unlawful. JCC Executive Director Alex Peterson stated: "Any response to a GRAMA that disclosed details [of the investigation] would have been illegal" [11].

The JCC opened a separate investigation into who released the confidential records [2].

With the allegations now public, Republican leaders escalated. Governor Cox, House Speaker Mike Schultz, and Senate President J. Stuart Adams announced they would launch an independent investigation, saying the JCC's preliminary review "left important questions unresolved" [12]. Cox framed the issue as accountability: "When you sign up to be a judge in this state, you get held to a higher standard. Period. Everyone knows this. This is part of the deal. If you want your personal life to always be personal, then don't be a judge" [1].

In April 2026, Utah Republican Party Chair Rob Axson launched a campaign at the GOP nominating convention to mobilize voters against both Hagen and Justice Jill Pohlman in upcoming retention elections [1].

The Resignation

On May 8, 2026, Hagen submitted her resignation to Governor Cox, effective immediately. In her letter, she wrote: "I would love nothing more than to continue serving the people of Utah as a Supreme Court Justice, 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" [1].

Hagen maintained that she "faithfully upheld my oath to the constitution and the ethical obligations that govern our profession" [13]. She did not admit to any misconduct.

Following the resignation, legislative leaders announced they would drop the independent investigation. In a joint statement, Cox, the legislative leadership, and Chief Justice Durrant said they would instead focus on "potential reforms to the Judicial Conduct Commission" [1].

The Judicial Ethics Framework

Utah's Code of Judicial Conduct mirrors the ABA Model Code and requires judges to "uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary" and to "avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety" [14]. Rule 2.11 of the Model Code requires disqualification when a judge has a personal relationship with an attorney that could create a reasonable question about impartiality [15].

Hagen's defenders argue she followed the rules: she recused herself from all cases involving Reymann once a potential conflict arose, and the JCC found no misconduct [2]. Critics contend that the timeline raises questions — specifically, whether the personal connection existed before her October 2024 ruling, which would have required earlier recusal.

The specific provisions alleged to have been violated relate to Canon 1 (maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary) and Canon 2 (avoiding the appearance of impropriety), though the JCC's investigator found insufficient evidence to support those claims [2].

The Broader Court-Packing Context

Hagen's resignation cannot be understood in isolation. It occurred against the backdrop of an aggressive legislative campaign to reshape the judiciary.

In January 2026, Cox signed legislation expanding the Utah Supreme Court from five to seven justices — a move Republican lawmakers openly linked to frustration with the court's redistricting rulings [3]. The legislature also stripped Supreme Court justices of the power to select their own chief justice, transferring that authority to the governor [3]. Once all vacancies are filled, Cox will have appointed five of the court's seven members [16].

Cox had already announced a dozen finalists for the two newly created seats — all male — before Hagen's resignation created a third opening [13].

Critics have characterized the sequence of events — expansion, ethics pressure, resignation — as a coordinated effort to neutralize a court that ruled against the legislature's preferred maps. "The legislature got what they wanted. They harassed a judge, a sitting judge," said Teneille Brown, president of Co-Equal Utah, a judicial independence advocacy organization [13].

Source: National Center for State Courts / News Reports

Data as of May 9, 2026CSV

Defenders and Critics

Those who say the resignation was premature and politically motivated point to several factors. The JCC — the constitutionally designated body for adjudicating judicial ethics — investigated and dismissed the complaint. The allegations originated from a contested divorce and were based on secondhand characterizations of text messages. The confidential investigation file was released in apparent violation of state law. And the political pressure intensified only after a series of rulings that went against the Republican legislative majority.

Kim Cordova, president of the Utah State Bar, said Hagen "was unfairly put in the spotlight for an allegation that had already been properly investigated by the agency that is constitutionally and legally created to handle these types of scenarios and no misconduct was found" [13].

Elizabeth Wright, the Bar's executive director, warned of a "chilling effect" on the judiciary: "When we start to have judges who are looking over their shoulder... It's a blow to a fair and independent judiciary." She predicted that "excellent lawyers or excellent judges... are going to think, 'I don't need this'" [12].

Co-Equal Utah issued a statement arguing the JCC's dismissal "should have been the end of it. Instead, a sitting justice was subjected to a coordinated political pressure campaign until she resigned." The group added: "The message to every judge in Utah is unmistakable: rule against the Legislature, and this is what follows" [1].

Those who support the investigation and see the resignation as appropriate argue that the JCC's preliminary review was insufficient. The commission interviewed Hagen's ex-husband but did not conduct a full investigation. Republican leaders said the public interest required a more thorough inquiry, particularly given the stakes of the redistricting case.

Governor Cox maintained that the investigation was not a "witch hunt" and emphasized that judges must accept heightened scrutiny [17]. Rob Axson, the GOP chair, called Hagen's resignation "a positive step for those of us who have demanded greater constitutional restraint and accountability from Utah's judiciary" [1].

Conservative commentators have focused on the political implications: if Hagen had an undisclosed personal connection to a plaintiff's attorney before authoring the pivotal July 2024 ruling, that would represent a serious conflict of interest affecting a case that reshaped the state's congressional districts [9].

What Happens to the Cases

Hagen's last involvement in the redistricting case was her authorship of the July 2024 opinion voiding Amendment D. She recused herself from the September 2025 ruling. Whether litigants could seek rehearing or vacatur of the July 2024 decision is a question that has not been publicly addressed by the court or the parties [1].

In general, judicial ethics violations can provide grounds for motions to vacate prior rulings, but the bar is high. A party would need to demonstrate that the judge's impartiality was actually compromised at the time of the decision, not merely that a personal connection later developed. Given that the JCC found no evidence of misconduct, and Hagen has stated the friendship rekindled only in early 2025, any such challenge would face an uphill battle [2].

The legislature's own decision to drop the investigation following Hagen's resignation makes it less likely that new evidence would emerge to support such a challenge. However, the redistricting litigants — particularly the legislature itself — retain the legal right to file motions based on the allegations.

Whistleblower Protections and the Disclosure Mechanism

The complaint followed an unusual path: Tobin Hagen, the justice's ex-husband, shared his allegations with a separate attorney, who then filed the formal complaint with the JCC and Chief Justice Durrant in December 2025 [9]. This was not a whistleblower report in the traditional sense — it arose from a private divorce dispute rather than from a court insider or litigant flagging a conflict.

Utah law provides confidentiality protections for JCC proceedings, including the identity of complainants, but the statute's protections were tested when the House released the file publicly [11]. The JCC's investigation into the leak remains ongoing. Whether the release constitutes a criminal violation of Utah's records law — carrying class B misdemeanor penalties — has not been resolved [11].

National Context

Judicial resignations under ethics pressure are relatively rare at the state supreme court level. Across the country, roughly 18 state supreme court justices have resigned under comparable circumstances over the past two decades, with the most common triggers being undisclosed financial conflicts, inappropriate ex parte communications, and personal relationships with attorneys or litigants [15].

The Utah case stands out because the underlying complaint was investigated and dismissed before political actors escalated the matter. In most prior cases, resignations followed either sustained findings by judicial conduct bodies or the initiation of formal proceedings — not the bypassing of those bodies by coordinate branches of government.

What Comes Next

Cox now faces three simultaneous Supreme Court appointments — an extraordinary concentration of judicial selection power for any single governor. The nonpartisan Judicial Nominating Commission, which screens candidates and forwards finalists to the governor, will play a central role. Co-Equal Utah has urged Cox to maintain the integrity of this process [1].

The legislature has signaled interest in reforming the Judicial Conduct Commission, though the scope of proposed changes remains undefined [1]. Any reform effort will itself test the boundaries of legislative authority over the judiciary — the same tension that produced the redistricting litigation in the first place.

Hagen, who previously served as a federal prosecutor and was part of the team that prosecuted Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper, left the bench having served since 2022 [13]. Her departure reshapes a court that had, until recently, been seen as a check on legislative power in one of the most Republican-dominated states in the country.