Justice Resigns Over Alleged Affair Scandal

Interior view of an empty courtroom with wooden furniture and American flags

A Utah Supreme Court justice resigned from the bench rather than face a state investigation into whether a personal relationship with a redistricting attorney compromised her judicial independence — and the moment she walked out the door, every powerful official in Utah declared the matter closed.

Story Snapshot

Justice Diana Hagen resigned from the Utah Supreme Court on May 9, 2026, citing a desire to protect her family’s privacy.
Allegations originated from Hagen’s ex-husband, who claimed text messages between Hagen and attorney David Reymann grew from “silly” to “more suggestive” during their marriage’s deterioration.
Reymann was the lead attorney for progressive groups challenging Utah’s Republican-drawn congressional map in a high-stakes redistricting lawsuit.
The Utah Judicial Conduct Commission investigated and dismissed the complaint, yet state leaders still demanded a separate probe — until Hagen resigned and they immediately dropped it.

How a Divorce Complaint Reached the State’s Highest Court

The chain of events began quietly in December 2025, when a Provo-based attorney filed a complaint with Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission on behalf of Hagen’s ex-husband. [1] The ex-husband claimed he had seen text messages between Hagen and David Reymann, describing the communications as starting off “silly” before evolving into something “more suggestive.” [1] The complaint raised the specter of an inappropriate relationship between a sitting state supreme court justice and an attorney actively litigating one of the most politically charged cases in Utah’s recent history.

Reymann was not just any attorney. He served as lead counsel for progressive organizations challenging the Republican-drawn congressional map in redistricting litigation that directly affected Utah’s political balance of power. [4] Hagen had reconnected with Reymann and other old friends in spring 2025 and, to her credit, promptly updated her recusal list and informed the Utah Supreme Court of the conflict. [3] Her last documented involvement in the redistricting case was October 2024, predating the reconnection. [5] The Judicial Conduct Commission reviewed the complaint and ultimately dismissed it, finding no basis to proceed. [1]

State Leaders Ignored the Commission’s Dismissal and Demanded More

What makes this story genuinely troubling is what happened after the Commission closed the case. Roughly three weeks before Hagen’s resignation, Governor Spencer Cox, Senate President J. Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz issued a joint statement demanding a further investigation, citing “serious questions” about Hagen’s external relationships with attorneys on the redistricting case. [2] This was a remarkable step — three of Utah’s most powerful elected officials publicly overriding the independent body specifically designed to evaluate judicial conduct. Whether that pressure reflected legitimate concern or political calculation over a consequential redistricting ruling is a question worth sitting with.

Hagen and Reymann both denied any improper relationship. [1] Hagen stated she had “faithfully upheld her oath” and reported the ex-husband’s claims to the Commission herself. [5] Reymann called the allegations false. [5] None of that stopped the political machinery from grinding forward. The absence of corroborating evidence — no forensic phone data, no verbatim texts, no sworn testimony beyond the ex-husband’s account — never slowed the calls for investigation once state leaders decided the matter warranted their attention. [1]

The Resignation That Ended All Questions — Conveniently

Hagen submitted her resignation to Governor Cox effective immediately on May 9, 2026. [3] Within hours, a joint statement from Cox, Chief Justice Durrant, Adams, and Schultz declared: “We consider this matter related to Justice Hagen concluded and will not conduct any further investigations.” [1] The same leaders who had publicly demanded accountability one month earlier were now satisfied the moment the justice vacated her seat. That sequence deserves scrutiny. If the underlying conduct was serious enough to override a Commission dismissal and demand a new probe, it was serious enough to pursue regardless of whether Hagen remained on the bench.

The pivot was immediate. All three branches of Utah government jointly committed to “reforms to the Judicial Conduct Commission,” shifting the public conversation from Hagen and Reymann to systemic process improvements. [3] Critics from judiciary advocacy groups called the entire episode a “relentless campaign” with “political motivations” to influence the courts. [3] That framing has some surface plausibility — the redistricting case at the center of this story directly affects Republican congressional advantages in Utah. But the voluntary recusal, the Commission dismissal, and the denials do not automatically make the underlying questions disappear. They simply make them harder to answer now that Hagen is gone and the investigation is officially dead.

What Remains Unanswered Is the Real Story

The text messages the ex-husband described have never been produced publicly, forensically examined, or specifically rebutted by either Hagen or the Commission. [1] The full dismissal rationale from the Judicial Conduct Commission has not been released. No sworn testimony from the ex-husband exists in the public record. Utah’s redistricting map — the political prize at the center of this drama — remains in legal dispute. A justice resigned, powerful men declared victory, and the evidence that started everything sits in a closed file. That is not resolution. That is a door quietly pulled shut. [5]