Utah Supreme Court Justice Investigated Over Texts Sent to Lawyer in Redistricting Case

Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen is facing a formal investigation by the state's top elected officials over allegations that she exchanged "inappropriate" text messages with David Reymann, an attorney who helped argue the most consequential case before her court in years — a redistricting lawsuit that resulted in Utah's congressional map being redrawn to include a Democratic-leaning district for the first time in over a decade [1].

The probe, announced on April 16, 2026, by Governor Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, comes months after the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission reviewed the same allegations and dismissed them for "insufficient evidence" [2]. The decision to launch a parallel investigation has split Utah's political establishment along partisan lines and raised questions about whether the real target is the justice — or the redistricting ruling itself.

The Allegations

The complaint against Hagen originated with attorney Michael Worley of Provo, who filed it in late December 2025. Worley said Hagen's ex-husband, Tobin Hagen, told him via Facebook message that the justice had exchanged text messages with Reymann that began as "silly" and became "more suggestive" [1]. Tobin Hagen said he discovered the messages in February 2025, during the couple's deteriorating marriage [3].

The texts have not been made public. Tobin Hagen did not show the messages to investigators or provide copies to the Judicial Conduct Commission [1]. No independent party has verified their contents. The nature of the messages — whether romantic, strategic, or simply personal — remains unsubstantiated by documentary evidence.

Justice Hagen has categorically denied the allegations. In a sworn declaration, she stated she was "faithful to my ex-husband for more than 30 years" and "never engaged in extramarital sex with anyone prior to our separation" in April 2025 [2]. She added: "I never operated under a conflict of interest while performing my judicial duties" [2].

Reymann has also called the allegations "false" [2].

The Redistricting Case: What Hagen Decided

The case at the center of the investigation, League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, is the highest-profile legal dispute to reach the Utah Supreme Court in recent memory [1].

In 2018, Utah voters passed Proposition 4, which established an Independent Redistricting Commission and prohibited partisan gerrymandering [4]. Before the 2021 redistricting cycle, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 200, which repealed Proposition 4, reduced the commission to an advisory role, and removed the anti-gerrymandering provisions [4]. The Legislature then approved a congressional map that split Salt Lake County — the state's most populous and most Democratic-leaning county — among all four congressional districts, diluting urban and Democratic votes [5].

On July 11, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling holding that the Legislature's repeal of Proposition 4 violated Utahns' constitutional right to reform their government through ballot initiatives [4]. The court remanded the case to the trial court and ordered strict scrutiny review of SB 200.

Hagen participated in the July 2024 ruling. She subsequently authored the majority opinion in a related case involving Amendment D — a ballot measure the Legislature proposed in response to the redistricting ruling — which the court unanimously invalidated in October 2024, finding the Legislature had failed to comply with notice requirements [6].

In August 2025, Third District Judge Dianna Gibson struck down the state's congressional map and, in November 2025, selected a plaintiff-proposed replacement map for the 2026 elections [7]. In February 2026, the Utah Supreme Court rejected the Legislature's appeal, leaving the court-ordered map in place [8]. By that point, Hagen had already recused herself from the case.

The Timeline: When Did the Relationship Begin?

The chronology matters because it determines whether Hagen's contact with Reymann overlapped with her judicial participation in the redistricting case.

According to filings reviewed by multiple news outlets [1][3]:

• July 2024: Hagen participates in the unanimous redistricting ruling.
• October 2024: Hagen authors the Amendment D opinion.
• November 3, 2024: Hagen and her then-husband attend a social gathering at Reymann's home.
• December 6, 2024: The couple sits with Reymann at a Salt Lake County Bar Association holiday party.
• September 2024: Hagen first suggests divorce to her husband.
• February 2025: Tobin Hagen alleges he discovers "inappropriate" text messages.
• March 2025: Hagen meets Reymann in a public place, according to her declaration.
• April 2025: The couple separates.
• May 2025: Hagen recuses herself from all cases involving Reymann.
• September 2025: Hagen recuses from the redistricting case when it returns to the Supreme Court.

Hagen's recusal notice, filed in September 2025, stated she had "voluntarily disqualified herself after renewing close friendships" with Reymann and Cheylynn Hayman, another attorney at Reymann's firm, in "early 2025" [2].

The key unresolved question is whether the text messages preceded or followed the July 2024 ruling. If they began after October 2024 — when Hagen's last substantive participation in redistricting-related decisions occurred — they would not constitute ex parte communication about a pending case. If they began earlier, the implications would be far more serious.

No evidence presented so far places the messages before November 2024 [1][3].

The Investigative Process: Who Has Authority?

Utah's Judicial Conduct Commission is the constitutionally authorized body for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct [9]. Created by the Legislature in 1971 and enshrined in the state constitution in 1984, the JCC receives and investigates complaints, conducts hearings, and recommends sanctions to the Utah Supreme Court [9]. The commission cannot discipline judges directly — only the Supreme Court can impose reprimand, censure, suspension, removal, or involuntary retirement [9].

The JCC conducted a preliminary investigation into the Hagen complaint. Its investigator interviewed Tobin Hagen but declined to interview Reymann, his wife, the Hagens' adult children, or to subpoena the text messages, citing concerns that further investigation "would be intrusive and potentially embarrassing for those involved" [1]. The commission found "insufficient evidence" and dismissed the complaint [2].

State Republican leaders argued the JCC review "left important questions unresolved" [2]. Their announcement of an independent investigation did not specify who would conduct it, what subpoena authority it would carry, or a timeline for completion [1].

Historical data on JCC sanctions is sparse. Between 1997 and 2013, the commission publicly released information on cases resulting in findings of misconduct, but no Utah Supreme Court justice has been formally sanctioned through this process in modern history [9].

The Political Fault Lines

The investigation has produced sharply divergent reactions along partisan lines.

Republican U.S. Rep. Blake Moore supported a thorough investigation, arguing that judges must decide cases "solely on the law, not personal relationships" [2]. Rep. Burgess Owens went further, claiming Hagen "helped force a map ... that handed a congressional seat to Democrats" [2].

Utah House and Senate Democrats issued a joint statement warning the legislative investigation "raises significant concerns over the separation of powers" and represents "a broader pattern of overstepping judicial independence" [10]. They defended the JCC as "the sole entity authorized to investigate allegations of misconduct against a judge" [2].

The Utah Supreme Court itself weighed in, criticizing "the inappropriate release of these materials" — a reference to the complaint documents becoming public — and reaffirming the JCC's constitutional role [2].

The Case for Political Motivation

There is a reasonable argument that the investigation is driven less by judicial ethics than by the political consequences of the redistricting ruling.

First, the complaint originated from Hagen's ex-husband during contentious divorce proceedings and was relayed by a third party — not from an attorney or party in the redistricting case itself [1]. No party that lost the redistricting case filed the complaint.

Second, the JCC — the body with constitutional authority over judicial conduct — reviewed and dismissed the allegations. The decision by Republican elected officials to launch a separate probe came only after the JCC closed the case [2].

Third, the stakes are enormous. The court-ordered congressional map creates a district in northern Salt Lake County with an estimated D+14 partisan lean, compared to three heavily Republican districts with R+38 to R+42 margins [11]. Democrats have not held a Utah congressional seat since 2014, and national Democrats now view the state as key to retaking the U.S. House in 2026 [11].

Source: Ballotpedia / Utah News Dispatch

Data as of Apr 18, 2026CSV

Fourth, comparable or more serious allegations of judicial impropriety in other states have not always triggered legislative investigations. In multiple states, judicial conduct commissions have served as the sole venue for misconduct complaints against sitting supreme court justices, without parallel probes by the political branches [12].

The Case for Accountability

Defenders of the investigation counter that the JCC process was inadequate. The commission's investigator did not subpoena the text messages, interview the attorney at the center of the allegations, or speak with other potential witnesses [1]. A dismissal based on such a limited inquiry, they argue, does not resolve questions about whether a justice had inappropriate contact with counsel in a case worth a congressional seat.

Under Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5, lawyers are prohibited from communicating ex parte with a judge about a pending or impending matter [13]. If a relationship between Hagen and Reymann existed while redistricting matters were active before the court, it could raise questions about both the justice's impartiality and the attorney's ethical obligations.

The timing issue is critical. Hagen participated in the July 2024 ruling and authored the October 2024 Amendment D opinion. If the "inappropriate" messages began before those decisions, the integrity of the rulings could be called into question. If they began afterward, the ethical concerns would be limited to Hagen's failure to disclose the relationship sooner.

Legal Precedent: What Happens If Misconduct Is Found?

The legal remedies available if ex parte contact is proven depend heavily on whether a challenger can show the communication affected the outcome — not merely that it occurred.

Courts have generally held that recusal is required when a judge's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" [13]. But vacatur — the voiding of a prior judgment — requires a higher showing. In most jurisdictions, a party seeking vacatur based on ex parte communications must demonstrate "actual prejudice," meaning the communication influenced the decision in a way that harmed one side [13].

In this case, vacatur would be particularly difficult to obtain. The July 2024 ruling was unanimous — all five justices joined it [4]. Even if Hagen were removed from the decision, four justices would remain. A challenger would need to argue that Hagen's participation tainted the reasoning of the entire court, a standard that courts have rarely applied.

If the redistricting ruling were somehow vacated or the case reheard, the political implications would be immediate. The court-ordered map governs the 2026 elections. A return to the Legislature's 2021 map — or any map that re-splits Salt Lake County — would likely eliminate the Democratic-leaning district and affect roughly 850,000 voters across all four congressional districts [11].

Utah in the National Redistricting Landscape

Utah's redistricting fight is one piece of a national pattern. Since 2021, state supreme courts in at least seven states have struck down legislative maps as unconstitutional gerrymanders, while courts in five states have upheld challenged maps [14]. Four other cases were resolved through settlements or legislative redraws.

Source: Brennan Center for Justice / State Court Report

Data as of Apr 18, 2026CSV

Notable parallels include Ohio, where the state supreme court struck down Republican-drawn maps seven times before the maps were ultimately used anyway; New York, where courts invalidated Democratic-drawn congressional maps; and North Carolina, where a newly elected conservative majority reversed a prior gerrymandering ruling in 2023 [14]. Wisconsin's supreme court struck down legislative maps in late 2023 after a liberal majority took control of the court [14].

Utah's case stands out because the court's ruling rested not on gerrymandering doctrine per se, but on the constitutional right of voters to reform government through ballot initiatives — a legal theory with few direct precedents in other states [4].

What Comes Next

The investigation announced by Cox, Adams, and Schultz has no public timeline, no named investigators, and no defined scope [1]. Whether it will have subpoena power — allowing it to compel production of the text messages at the center of the allegations — remains unclear.

Meanwhile, the court-ordered redistricting map remains in effect for the 2026 elections. A federal panel denied a separate bid to overturn the map in February 2026 [8]. Candidates are already filing to run under the new district lines [11].

Justice Hagen continues to serve on the court. She has recused herself from all redistricting-related cases and all matters involving Reymann [2]. The four remaining justices have given no indication that the July 2024 ruling is in jeopardy.

The central tension is plain: an investigation driven by elected officials from the party that lost the redistricting case, targeting a justice who ruled against them, based on unverified allegations from a divorce proceeding — examined and dismissed by the constitutionally designated body for judicial oversight. Whether that investigation produces evidence of genuine misconduct or functions primarily as political leverage against an unfavorable court ruling will depend on facts that have not yet been made public.