Utah leaders launch probe into Supreme Court justice over alleged relationship with redistricting lawyer

Justice Diana Hagen, who was appointed by Cox, stands accused by her ex-husband of sending what he described as "inappropriate" text messages to an attorney who helped challenge a Republican-friendly map that maintained four red congressional seats in Utah. 

The Judicial Conduct Commission, described on its website as an independent body comprising several state lawmakers, judges and members of the public, conducted a preliminary investigation based on the complaint and chose not to pursue the matter further, the outlet reported. Fox News Digital reached out to the Judicial Conduct Commission for comment.

The Utah Supreme Court issued a public statement on behalf of Hagen Friday afternoon in which she said she never had a conflict of interest.

"My last involvement in the redistricting case was October 2024," Hagen said. "I voluntarily recused myself from all cases involving Mr. Reymann in May 2025, and my recusal was reflected in the Court's September 15, 2025 opinion in League of Women Voters. 

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

The complaint and interviews conducted by the Judicial Conduct Commission found that Hagen and her husband began discussing divorce in September 2024, had interacted together with Reymann toward the end of that year and that Hagen did not meet one-on-one with Reymann until 2025, according to KSL.

Cox, along with Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz, who joined the governor in launching the new investigation, said in a joint statement that more "transparency" was needed on the matter, signaling that the public's trust in the state's highest court was at stake, especially after a polarizing decision in a redistricting case set to affect the midterms.

"An initial review by the Judicial Conduct Commission and the court left important questions unresolved," they said. "Allegations of this nature, especially involving public officials, must be examined with transparency and accountability to establish the facts and to maintain public confidence."