A political storm has hit Utah’s highest court after Justice Diana Hagen abruptly resigned [1] amid accusations of an inappropriate relationship with a left wing attorney tied to one of the most politically charged legal battles in the state.
The alleged connection between the justice and David Reymann, a lawyer who fought Republican congressional maps on behalf of the League of Women Voters, has cast a long shadow over the Utah judiciary and raised serious questions about impartiality and ethics.
Hagen tendered her resignation in a letter to Republican Governor Spencer Cox. She claimed it was done with “deep sadness” and “profound love and respect” for her colleagues.
Her statement was full of emotional language about professionalism and integrity, but critics see her exit as a predictable outcome once an independent investigation began probing her alleged conduct.
The justice wrote that her decision was meant to shield the court from further controversy, but it is impossible to ignore the timing.
Her resignation came less than a month after news broke of the possible personal connection with Reymann, a figure whose political advocacy has repeatedly clashed with Utah’s conservative majority.
According to local reports, Hagen had allegedly been involved with Reymann while he was representing the League of Women Voters in a high stakes redistricting lawsuit that targeted the congressional maps approved by Republican lawmakers.
Those maps were accused of disadvantaging Democrats, a claim the GOP maintained was based purely on partisan showmanship rather than constitutional violations.
Initially, Hagen denied any conflict of interest and insisted she had not been involved in the redistricting case since late 2024.
However, in May 2025 she voluntarily recused herself from all cases connected to Reymann.
That was not enough to prevent the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission from pursuing an independent review after a formal complaint was filed against her.
Hagen’s resignation has inevitably stirred political tensions, especially since Reymann’s affiliations are rooted in organizations that have long been hostile to conservative election reforms.
The League of Women Voters, though often portrayed as a neutral civic group, has in recent years joined left wing coalitions challenging Republican drawn maps and voting laws across the country.
WATCH:
Many Utah conservatives view the situation as an alarming reminder of how deeply progressive activism has seeped into what should be an impartial judicial system.
Some see Hagen’s departure as proof that the state’s judiciary is not immune to the political influence that dominates other parts of government.
If an alleged personal relationship stands between a judge and a politically active lawyer, it is easy to lose public confidence in the fairness of court proceedings.
In April, before the resignation, Governor Cox along with Republican legislative leaders Mike Schultz and Stuart Adams, ordered an official inquiry into the misconduct claims.
That move came despite opposition from those who argued that Hagen’s voluntary recusal had already resolved any potential ethical breach.
Their determination to dig deeper reflects the seriousness with which Utah’s leaders take judicial integrity.
Observers have noted that Hagen’s resignation language echoed similar statements made by other officials trying to exit gracefully under fire.
She ended her letter saying she regretted the “disruption” caused by her “sudden departure.”
To her critics, it sounded more like an attempt to shift focus away from the scandal than an act of noble sacrifice.
Her professional history includes three decades of legal service, including time as a prosecutor before joining the high court.
Until recently, she was considered one of the court’s rising figures. Her fall from grace has served as a sobering demonstration of how even a strong career résumé cannot protect anyone from the consequences of poor judgment or blurred ethical boundaries.
Utah’s case is far from isolated, as similar controversies have arisen elsewhere when judges appear too comfortably aligned with liberal legal circles.
Conservatives argue that justice cannot be blind if the people dispensing it are cozy with the political actors bringing cases before them.
Hagen’s resignation leaves an immediate vacancy on the state’s Supreme Court, giving Republicans an opportunity to appoint a new justice committed to impartial interpretation of the law.
Governor Cox now faces not only the decision of selecting her replacement but also the larger challenge of restoring public confidence in an institution whose credibility has been shaken.
Many Utahns believe this situation will serve as a necessary reminder that no judge, no matter how accomplished, is above the ethical expectations that safeguard judicial integrity.
Hagen may have exited with carefully crafted words, but the shadow of this chapter will remain as the latest example of how personal and political entanglements can corrode the foundation of trust upon which justice depends.