Supreme Court, Justice Hagen respond to state investigation into misconduct allegations

SALT LAKE CITY — Both the Utah Supreme Court and Justice Diana Hagen are responding to news that a state investigation is being launched to look into allegations that Hagen had a relationship with an attorney arguing cases before the high court.

Those allegations are detailed in a complaint submitted late last year to both Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission, which was obtained by KSL through a public records request. The complaint came from a Provo attorney who said Hagen’s ex-husband told him the justice had exchanged “inappropriate” text messages with one of the attorneys involved in a case about redistricting, which led to Utah getting a new congressional map.

KSL first reported Thursday evening on the allegations and news that top state leaders have ordered an independent investigation into them. Neither the Utah Supreme Court nor Hagen responded to an initial request for comment on the story prior to its publication.

After it was published, both the court and Hagen issued statements Friday defending the process and criticizing the release of the complaint against the justice.

“The Judicial Conduct Commission recently reviewed the matter, dismissed the complaint, and closed the case,” said Hagen. “I remain committed to upholding the highest standards of judicial ethics, integrity and impartiality.”

“The inappropriate release of these materials prompted renewed questioning about allegations that were previously investigated and dismissed in accordance with the process established by the Utah Constitution,” the Utah Supreme Court added.

The redistricting attorney, David Reymann, has denied the allegations, calling them “false.” Reymann does outside legal work for KSL and as an attorney for the Utah Media Coalition, of which KSL is a member.

Meanwhile, a top Republican in Congress, Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, expressed support for an independent investigation into the allegations. The investigation was announced late Thursday by Gov. Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz. The three leaders said they felt the preliminary investigation by the Judicial Conduct Commission and the court “left important questions unresolved.”

Moore said Friday that the investigation should be “thorough, transparent and swift.”

“If these allegations are true, they could represent a breach of public trust and undermine the credibility of the judicial process,” Moore said in a statement. “The impartiality of our courts is essential to the functioning of our democracy. Utahns must be able to trust that judges are making decisions based solely on the law, not personal relationships or outside influences. It is imperative that the public is assured that our judicial system is free from bias and conflicts of interest.”

Rep. Burgess Owens, who announced he would not seek reelection after the new map was finalized, said Hagen “helped force a map on our state that handed a congressional seat to Democrats.”

If the allegations are true, he said, “it is the theft of Utahns’ voice and the height of judicial tyranny.”

State leaders have not said when the independent investigation will begin or who will conduct it.

Supreme Court and Hagen issue statements

This issue centers on League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, arguably the highest-profile legal case to reach the Utah Supreme Court in years, which led to Utah getting a new congressional map. Hagen was part of a unanimous ruling in July 2024 that said lawmakers overreached by changing Proposition 4, an anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative. That decision prompted anger and condemnation by some Republicans.

In October 2024, Hagen authored a related opinion invalidating Amendment D, an effort by lawmakers to give themselves power to overturn ballot initiatives.

After that, Hagen attended a gathering with her then-husband at Reymann’s house on Nov. 3, 2024 — less than two weeks after the Amendment D ruling, according to a statement she provided the Judicial Conduct Commission. She also said she and her then-husband sat with Reymann at the Salt Lake County Bar holiday party on Dec. 6, 2024.

According to the complaint, Hagen’s ex-husband told another attorney that Hagen had exchanged “inappropriate” text messages with Reymann, and that he suspected the two began having an inappropriate relationship. The exact timeline of when those alleged text messages were sent is unclear.

That attorney submitted those allegations to the Judicial Conduct Commission, which investigates complaints against judges. The commission conducted a preliminary investigation, according to documents, but the investigator wrote that there was “insufficient evidence” to back up the allegations and that taking further steps to investigate “would be intrusive and potentially embarrassing for those involved.”

In a lengthy statement Friday, the Utah Supreme Court noted that Hagen recused herself from the case after reconnecting “with a number of old friends in the spring of 2025,” without mentioning her attendance at the November 2024 gathering at Reymann’s home. The court also noted that Hagen informed her colleagues of the allegations made by her ex-husband later that year.

Hagen herself said she “never operated under a conflict of interest while performing my judicial duties.”

“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,” Hagen said.

In her declaration to the commission, Hagen said she was “faithful to my ex-husband for more than 30 years. I never engaged in extramarital sex with anyone prior to our separation.” She said she had suggested a divorce in September 2024, and the couple separated in April 2025.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court defended the inquiry already conducted by the Judicial Conduct Commission.

“As the sole entity authorized to investigate allegations of misconduct against a judge, the Judicial Conduct Commission received the allegations in their entirety and conducted an independent investigation,” the court said. “The Judicial Conduct Commission completed their investigation in accordance with their constitutional and statutory authority and dismissed the complaint against Justice Hagen.”

The Utah State Bar added that it was concerned in a statement Friday, saying it “shares the Utah Supreme Court’s concerns regarding the release of confidential and statutorily protected JCC records.”

“We appreciate the important function of the JCC and trust that they conduct their investigations and make findings with careful and thorough consideration,” the statement continued. “We affirm the court’s statement that the JCC is the sole entity established by the Utah Constitution with the specific authority to ‘investigate and conduct confidential hearings regarding complaints against any justice or judge.'”

Democrats defend judiciary’s independence

Democrats in the Utah House and Senate issued a statement late Thursday in response to reports of the investigation, defending the independence of the judiciary and also expressing support for the Judicial Conduct Commission’s previous investigation.

“Efforts by the Legislature to investigate a member of the judiciary raise significant concerns over the separation of powers,” the Democratic lawmakers said. “This is part of a broader pattern of overstepping judicial independence and sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.”

They noted that the commission was created by the Utah Constitution and designed “to ensure confidentiality, neutrality, independence and insulation from political influence.”

“We will continue to defend the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional processes that safeguard it,” they said.

The investigation into Hagen’s alleged relationship follows years of tension between the Republican-controlled Legislature and the judiciary, stemming in part from the rulings on redistricting. After the Supreme Court ruling in 2024, a lower court judge struck down the state’s congressional maps last year and later adopted a map submitted by the plaintiffs in the case which created a Democratic-leaning district in Salt Lake County.

Lawmakers have proposed a series of changes to the courts in recent years, prompting an outcry over judicial independence from some attorneys.

The Legislature recently approved adding an additional two justices to the high court while increasing the number of judges on the lower courts. Lawmakers also created a rotating panel of judges to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of state laws. The attorney general quickly sought to move several of the state’s high-profile cases to the panel, which was met with court challenges, including one from the plaintiffs in the redistricting case.