Utah Supreme Court justice resigns amid probe into alleged relationship with redistricting attorney

What is confirmed about the resignation

Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen resigned effective immediately on May 8, 2026, according to KUER and other Utah outlets quoting her letter to Gov. Spencer Cox. In that letter, she cited the impossibility of continuing on the bench without sacrificing the “privacy and well-being of those I care about” and the “effective functioning and independence of Utah’s judiciary.”

The governor’s office confirmed the departure the same day. Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, House Speaker Mike Schultz, and Chief Justice Matthew Durrant later issued a joint statement promising to work on possible Judicial Conduct Commission reforms—an unusual trifecta of branches reacting in public unison. Resignation also removes Hagen from November retention politics that had already begun to flare.

How the ex-husband claim entered the official process

The ethics channel began with Tobin Hagen, Justice Hagen’s ex-husband, not with a random social post. KSL, which says it obtained the complaint through a public records request, reports that Provo attorney Michael Worley received allegations from Tobin Hagen via Facebook, then filed with Chief Justice Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission in late December 2025, believing bar rules obliged him to report.

KSL’s summary of the filing is specific about the text-thread allegation: Tobin Hagen allegedly told Worley that Diana Hagen and David Reymann—a lawyer tied to plaintiffs in Utah’s congressional redistricting fight—exchanged “inappropriate” text messages that Tobin Hagen characterized as starting “silly” and becoming “more suggestive.” Those phrases are claimed facts from the complaint narrative, not findings by a court. KSL also notes documents saying Tobin Hagen did not want the commission filing but “acknowledged its accuracy” as Worley framed it.

What Tobin Hagen told investigators—and what he did not produce

In the commission process, KSL reports, Tobin Hagen told an investigator he noticed “inappropriate text messages” between the justice and Reymann in February 2025 but did not show the messages to investigators. That gap matters legally and journalistically: absent message content in the record, reviewers must rely on testimony, timing, and circumstantial detail.

Tobin Hagen also described social overlap with Reymann in late 2024, a period when the redistricting case was live before the high court. Justice Hagen’s own commission filing—described by KSL—offers a competing timeline: she says she proposed divorce in September 2024, the couple separated in April 2025, and she met Reymann one-on-one in a public place in March 2025 for the first time in years, after a marriage she describes as faithful for decades.

Who David Reymann is in the redistricting fight

Multiple Utah outlets identify Reymann as an attorney for plaintiffs challenging legislative maps—KUTV names him as former lead counsel for the League of Women Voters side of the litigation. The underlying case—League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature—is the state’s highest-profile election-law dispute in years, which is why any appearance of bias draws political heat even when judges insist they followed recusal rules.

Hagen’s last merits involvement in the redistricting line, per court statements summarized by KUER, was October 2024, when she authored a unanimous opinion voiding Amendment D. She recused from Reymann matters in spring 2025, and later from further redistricting orders such as the September 2025 refusal to delay court-ordered map work—recusal lines KUTV ties to published docket notices.

What the underlying lawsuit was fighting over

KSL situates the ethics storm inside a case many Utah voters already know by shorthand: plaintiffs challenged how lawmakers handled Proposition 4, an anti-gerrymandering ballot measure, and later fought Amendment D, a legislative push that sought—according to critics—to let the Legislature override certain initiatives. In July 2024, the justices issued a unanimous ruling that lawmakers had overreached in changing Prop 4’s framework; Hagen’s later October 2024 opinion invalidating Amendment D kept the court at the center of a raw power contest between voters and the Capitol.

That docket context explains why Republican lawmakers reacted with outrage and why any personal tie between a justice and counsel for plaintiffs would be politically explosive even if ethics reviewers thought evidence was thin. It does not, by itself, prove impropriety; it only explains why the temperature on Hagen’s resignation is national-news hot inside Utah.

What Hagen and Reymann said publicly

Justice Hagen has called adultery claims “patently false” in the broader reporting cluster, and insisted she never operated under a conflict of interest on the bench. KUTV quotes the Supreme Court noting she “reconnected with old friends” in spring 2025, including Reymann, updated her recusal list, and kept the court informed.

Reymann told KSL the allegations were “false.” KSL also discloses that Reymann does outside legal work for KSL and the Utah Media Coalition—a transparency note readers should weigh when triangulating coverage. ABC4 and other stations published additional document summaries; treat them as reporting layers, not substitutes for reading primary filings yourself if you need certainty.

Why the Judicial Conduct Commission dismissed the complaint

KUER and KSL both report the commission investigated preliminary and declined to go further. KSL quotes an investigator’s reasoning that there was “insufficient evidence” to back the allegations and that deeper steps—subpoenaing texts, interviewing more family members—would be “intrusive and potentially embarrassing.”

That disposition did not end the political story. Cox, Adams, and Schultz told KSL an “initial review… left important questions unresolved” and promised an independent investigation with more transparency. In other words, Utah’s separation-of-powers drama became: internal judicial ethics closed a file; elected leaders refused to treat closure as the last word.

The Cheylynn Hayman recusal footnote

KSL flags that Cheylynn Hayman, another attorney at Reymann’s firm, chairs the Judicial Conduct Commission—a fact pattern that instantly raises appearance questions. The commission told KSL Hayman recused from this matter; Newsorga has not independently verified internal commission minutes, but the disclosed recusal is structurally important to how fair process is perceived.

Readers should not confuse recusal of a commissioner with proof either way on the underlying relationship claim. It is simply one more reason elected leaders could argue the public needed a parallel review track with different optics.

Why resignation arrived before the outside probe finished

Hagen’s May 8 letter frames resignation as protecting family privacy and judicial independence—a formulation that can read as preempting a politically charged process as much as admitting fault. KUER notes the court had already called public document dumps “inappropriate” and said they revived questions the commission had dismissed under constitutional procedure.

For observers, the sequence is the story: dismissed ethics complaint → leaked or released materials → executive/legislative outrage → second investigation announced → resignation. Whether that proves misconduct, proves overreach, or proves both depends on evidence the public may never fully see because commission files are confidential by statute.

Stakes beyond one justice

Redistricting touches who holds federal power from Utah; judicial recusal doctrine touches whether losers trust the referee. When those collide, institutions face a credibility test even if no affair occurred: can the public distinguish ethical caution from actual bias?

The Utah State Bar executive quoted by KUER warns of a chilling effect if judges fear partisan reprisal. Conversely, accountability advocates argue high office requires higher transparency when litigation implicates the legislature itself. Both can be true as civic tensions, not as mutual exclusions.

What to watch next

Track whether the independent investigation publishes findings or only closed summaries; whether JCC reform bills change subpoena, transparency, or commissioner-conflict rules; and whether redistricting litigants seek any procedural relief tied to prior panel composition. Also watch vacancy appointment politics: Cox will name a successor under Utah’s merit process, but the environment is overheated.

On facts, the open questions are narrow but heavy: what the texts actually said, whether anyone neutral ever reviewed them under oath, and whether recusal timing fully addressed appearance risk while the case was active.

Bottom line

Confirmed: Hagen resigned May 8, 2026; a December 2025 complaint channeled Tobin Hagen’s account—including claimed inappropriate texts with Reymann—into the Judicial Conduct Commission; the commission stopped short of a full probe; state leaders ordered another investigation anyway.

Not proven in any public court judgment: a romantic affair, a quid pro quo, or a corrupted vote. Reported but contested: the content and tone of messages Tobin Hagen described but, per KSL, did not hand over. The responsible read is to hold allegation, denial, and institutional process in separate columns until—or unless—primary evidence moves into the open record.