Gov. Spencer Cox joined Utah's top legislative leaders this spring to call for an independent look into allegations swirling around one of the state's Supreme Court justices. The move came after a preliminary review by the Judicial Conduct Commission wrapped up without further action, leaving some questions hanging in the air for the people who run the state.

Nobody tells you how quickly a personal dispute can turn into a public institution test. In this case, text messages and divorce details from late 2025 bubbled up through a complaint filed by another attorney, pulling in names tied to one of Utah's biggest recent court fights over how congressional districts get drawn.

The leaders spelled out their reasoning in a joint statement: the earlier review left important questions unresolved, and allegations involving public officials deserve a closer, transparent pass to keep confidence in the system intact. They committed to an objective process, though details on who would run it or when it would start stayed light at first.

Justice Diana Hagen, appointed by Cox in 2022, faced claims that she exchanged inappropriate messages with attorney David Reymann. Reymann had represented plaintiffs in the redistricting lawsuit that challenged maps drawn by the Republican-led Legislature. Both Hagen and Reymann pushed back hard, calling the claims false and noting she had recused herself from any cases involving him once personal connections renewed during her separation.

The redistricting battle itself started with a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that struck down changes lawmakers made to a voter-approved anti-gerrymandering measure. That decision led to a new map for the state's four congressional seats, one that shifted the balance away from the original legislative plan. The case kept returning in pieces, including fights over ballot language that would have given the Legislature more power to tweak initiatives. Hagen authored the opinion on one of those follow-ups.

By the time the probe call went out in mid-April 2026, the Judicial Conduct Commission had already interviewed parties, reviewed what evidence existed, and decided the claims lacked enough support to move forward. The commission's investigator flagged that a deeper dive might have meant subpoenas for messages or talks with family members, but called those steps too intrusive given the thin record. The full court later noted that the complaint materials were supposed to stay confidential and described their release as inappropriate.

Photo by Alex Moliski on Unsplash

Hagen's ex-husband, Tobin Hagen, had shared suspicions in messages to others, including claims about texts that started light and turned suggestive, plus a payment tied to their divorce settlement. He later clarified to investigators that he had not pushed for the formal complaint and that some details involved a nondisparagement discussion rather than a straight hush payment. Hagen herself submitted a sworn statement denying any extramarital relationship or ethical lapse on the bench, pointing out she had disclosed the situation to colleagues and stepped away from relevant cases months earlier.

House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams stood with the governor on the need for more scrutiny. The three emphasized that maintaining trust in courts matters especially when high-stakes political maps hang in the balance. At the same time, the Supreme Court defended the commission's constitutional role as the proper body for these reviews and stressed that the allegations came after Hagen's main work on the redistricting opinions.

One wrinkle that caught attention was how the complaint reached the commission in the first place. A Provo attorney named Michael Worley received a Facebook message from Tobin Hagen around the time the divorce news surfaced publicly. Worley felt an obligation under bar rules to flag potential issues and passed it along, even though he had no firsthand knowledge. The commission's process stayed confidential by design, which is why the later document release drew its own pushback from judicial leaders.

By early May, Justice Hagen had submitted her resignation. The timing overlapped with the ongoing conversation about the independent review, though the exact reasons for stepping down stayed private. The episode left Utah's highest court with a vacancy heading into a retention election cycle and raised fresh questions about how personal matters intersect with judicial ethics when lawyers and judges have long histories in a relatively small legal community.

Explaining the machinery here helps make sense of why leaders pushed for another look. Utah's Judicial Conduct Commission mixes lawmakers, governor appointees, bar members, and judges. It handles complaints through preliminary checks that can end quickly if evidence does not support misconduct. The constitution gives it sole authority for these investigations, which is why the court's statement highlighted the established process. An independent probe outside that structure would need to navigate those boundaries carefully, possibly through legislative channels or another designated body.

Redistricting fights like this one show up in states across the country whenever maps get redrawn after the census. Utah's version carried extra heat because it involved a ballot initiative that voters had passed to limit gerrymandering, followed by legislative tweaks that the courts later limited. The attorney at the center of the allegations worked for groups pushing for maps that gave more competitive districts, a direct counter to the Legislature's preferred lines that protected four Republican-leaning seats.

Photo by Danny Burke on Unsplash

What comes next depends on how the independent effort takes shape. Cox noted in a later news conference that he did not yet have a clear picture of the format or timeline, and he stressed the value of keeping any review independent. Three routes exist under state law for looking into a sitting justice: the commission itself, the attorney general for criminal angles, or the House for impeachment proceedings. None had moved forward in a new direction by midsummer.

Public confidence in courts often rests on perceptions of impartiality more than any single ruling. When allegations surface that tie a justice's personal life to lawyers arguing before her, even if denied and partially addressed through recusal, the ripple effects reach beyond one case. Utah's experience here mirrors patterns seen elsewhere, where ethics complaints tied to high-profile litigation draw extra scrutiny from elected officials who disagree with the outcomes.

The documents that surfaced also mentioned social interactions between the Hagens and Reymann in late 2024, right around the time opinions were being finalized. Hagen described reconnecting with old friends, including Reymann, for support as her marriage ended, and she said she had been upfront about those meetings. Investigators found no direct proof of an affair, only the ex-husband's suspicions based on messages he said he saw but did not produce.

Observers note that small-state legal circles often mean judges and attorneys cross paths over decades, which makes bright-line rules about appearances of impropriety both necessary and sometimes hard to apply cleanly. Hagen had recused from Reymann-related matters by May 2025 and disclosed the situation internally. That step addressed the immediate conflict, yet the later public airing of older allegations kept the story alive into the probe announcement.