A storm is brewing in Utah’s judicial system, and at the center of it stands Diana Hagen, now facing mounting scrutiny over what critics say could be a deeply troubling conflict of interest in one of the state’s most consequential recent cases.
The controversy stems from a formal ethics complaint alleging that Justice Hagen may have had a personal relationship with David Reymann, the lead attorney representing the League of Women Voters in a high-stakes redistricting battle. That case—one with major political implications—ultimately reshaped congressional maps in the state, raising the stakes of any potential misconduct to a whole new level.
While the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission reviewed the complaint and largely dismissed it as insignificant, many conservatives aren’t buying it. For them, the issue isn’t just whether rules were technically broken—it’s whether the integrity of the court itself has been compromised.
Adding fuel to the fire, Utah’s top Republican leaders, including Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, have all publicly called for further investigation. In a joint statement, they warned that the allegations “raise serious questions” and deserve a closer, independent look.
That’s a notable rebuke—not just of the situation itself, but of the commission that many believe may have brushed the issue aside too quickly.
The timeline only adds to the unease. Justice Hagen participated in matters related to the case as late as October 2024, only recusing herself months later in May 2025 from cases involving Reymann. For critics, that delay raises an obvious question: why wait?
Hagen has flatly denied any wrongdoing. In a statement, she insisted that claims she was “ethically compromised” are “patently false.” But the complaint—filed by a Provo-based attorney—leans heavily on allegations from her ex-husband, who claims the relationship did occur. He reiterated that belief publicly earlier this year, further intensifying the spotlight on the case.
Meanwhile, the League of Women Voters has declined to comment, offering only a brief statement when pressed by reporters. That silence is unlikely to calm critics who see the situation as emblematic of a broader lack of transparency in institutions that wield significant power.
Unsurprisingly, Democrats have rushed to defend the status quo, arguing that reopening the case could threaten the separation of powers. But that argument is ringing hollow for many voters who believe accountability shouldn’t stop at the courtroom doors.
As political analyst Nic Dunn noted, this wasn’t just any case—it was “arguably one of the most consequential” to reach the Utah Supreme Court in years. And when decisions of that magnitude are involved, even the appearance of impropriety can erode public trust.
That’s precisely why calls for an independent review are gaining traction. For many, this isn’t about politics—it’s about restoring confidence in a judicial system that must remain above reproach.
Because if justice is to mean anything, it must not only be fair—it must be seen to be fair. And right now, in Utah, that standard is very much in question.
