Editorial illustration
Justice Diana Hagen is gone. The Utah Supreme Court Justice who found herself at the center of a scandal involving an inappropriate relationship with a leftist attorney tied to a contentious redistricting case submitted her resignation Friday, effective immediately. Governor Spencer Cox confirmed he received her letter, thanking her for her years of service in a statement that was notably brief given the circumstances.
This isn’t how judicial careers are supposed to end. But then again, this entire saga has been a masterclass in how the judicial system protects its own—until the political pressure becomes too much to ignore.
The story began unraveling last month when allegations surfaced that Hagen had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with David Reymann, an attorney involved in Utah’s redistricting litigation. That case had enormous political stakes. In November, a lower court threw out the Republican legislature’s congressional map, calling it an unconstitutional gerrymander and replacing it with a map drawn by left-wing plaintiffs. The result? Democrats gained a seat in bright red Utah.
The Utah Supreme Court declined to block that new map. Hagen was on the court at the time. The Judicial Conduct Commission, in its wisdom, had previously dismissed concerns about her conduct as speculative, overstated, and misleading according to the Salt Lake Tribune. No discipline. No consequences. Just business as usual.
But the allegations wouldn’t go away. Once Governor Cox and state legislative leaders announced they were launching their own investigation, Hagen’s position became untenable. The resignation came shortly after.
Here’s what should trouble every American who cares about judicial integrity. The system had multiple opportunities to address this. The Judicial Conduct Commission had the facts and chose to downplay them. It took political pressure from elected officials to force any accountability at all. What does that tell us about how the judiciary polices itself?
The left will frame this as a victory for accountability, and in a narrow sense, it is. Hagen shouldn’t have been on the bench while maintaining a relationship with an attorney involved in cases before her court. That’s Judicial Ethics 101. But the bigger question is why it took an external political push to make something this obvious happen.
Conservatives have long warned about judicial activism and the tendency of courts to view themselves as above the people they’re supposed to serve. This case puts those concerns in sharp relief. A justice with apparent conflicts of interest helps deliver a political victory to Democrats through redistricting, faces allegations of personal impropriety with an attorney involved in that litigation, and the system initially shrugs it off as no big deal.
The resignation is the right outcome. But it shouldn’t have required legislative intervention to get there. The judiciary needs to take a long look in the mirror and ask why its own oversight mechanisms failed so completely before outside pressure forced their hand.
For Utah voters, this is a reminder that elections have consequences—not just for legislators and governors, but for the judges they appoint. The next justice appointed to fill Hagen’s seat will help shape Utah law for decades. Choosing wisely matters.
Justice Hagen’s departure closes this chapter. But the questions it raises about judicial accountability, conflicts of interest, and whether the courts can be trusted to police themselves will linger long after her name fades from the headlines.
About The Author
