Utah Supreme Court says affair allegations against justice were ‘inappropriately’ released

The ongoing clash between Utah state leaders and the state’s highest court has boiled over into a whole new realm while exposing previously investigated and dismissed allegations that one of the court’s justices had an affair with an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the state’s high-profile redistricting lawsuit. 

The day after one of the state’s most popular news sites, KSL.com, broke the news that Gov. Spencer Cox and the state’s top Republican legislative leaders said they would be launching an independent investigation into Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen, the Utah Supreme Court issued a statement saying documents detailing the allegations against her were confidential and “inappropriately released to the public.” 

The investigator who wrote the report on the preliminary investigation into Hagen ultimately recommended that the Judicial Conduct Commission dismiss the allegations against her for “insufficient evidence of judicial misconduct,” while also concluding that an allegation that Hagen inappropriately paid her ex-husband $40,000 to keep quiet was “unfounded.” 

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

“As the sole entity authorized to investigate allegations of misconduct against a judge, the Judicial Conduct Commission received the allegations in their entirety and conducted an independent investigation,” the Utah Supreme Court said in a statement issued Friday. “The Judicial Conduct Commission completed their investigation in accordance with their constitutional and statutory authority and dismissed the complaint against Justice Hagen.”

Under Utah law, complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commission and its proceedings are confidential, the Utah Supreme Court said. 

“Despite their protected status, records of the Judicial Conduct Commission were inappropriately released to the public. The Judiciary does not have access to those records and did not release them. The Judicial Conduct Commission has indicated that they did not release them. The inappropriate release of these materials prompted renewed questioning about allegations that were previously investigated and dismissed in accordance with the process established by the Utah Constitution.”

In response to a public records request for the documents provided to KSL, the chief of staff for the Utah House of Representatives provided the same documents — including the report of the preliminary investigation into Hagen — to Utah News Dispatch on Friday morning. 

A House spokesperson did not respond to a question asking how the House came to be in possession of the complaint and the report of the preliminary investigation of Hagen. 

In response to the Utah Supreme Court’s statement saying the records were “inappropriately” released, House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, issued a statement saying: “We followed the statute in releasing these records.” 

Allegations of this nature, especially involving public officials, must be examined with transparency and accountability to establish the facts and to maintain public confidence.

– Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams

The Judicial Conduct Commission is an independent body made up of two members of the House of Representatives appointed by the House speaker, two members of the Senate appointed by the Senate president, three people appointed by the governor, two members of the Utah State Bar, and two judges appointed by the Utah Supreme Court. That commission ultimately dismissed the complaint against Hagen, as recommended by the investigator. 

In a joint statement, Gov. Spencer Cox, Schultz, and Senate President Stuart Adams said the media reports about Hagen “and an attorney who has argued high-profile cases before the Court raise serious questions and concerns.” 

That attorney is David Reymann, who has represented the League of Women Voters and other plaintiffs in the anti-gerrymandering lawsuit that resulted in a court-ordered congressional map that Republican state leaders, especially Schultz and Adams, have vehemently fought and criticized. 

Reymann has also worked on behalf of news outlets and the state’s media coalition, including Utah News Dispatch.

In response to a request for comment Thursday, Reymann told Utah News Dispatch that “the allegations are false.” 

Cox, Schultz and Adams, in their statement, said the “initial review by the Judicial Conduct Commission and the Court left important questions unresolved.”

“Allegations of this nature, especially involving public officials, must be examined with transparency and accountability to establish the facts and to maintain public confidence,” they said.

The governor, House speaker and Senate president announced they will “move forward with an independent investigation to ensure the facts are fully examined.” 

“This process will be conducted objectively and thoroughly, because maintaining trust in our institutions is essential,” they said. 

The release of the preliminary investigation — which was spurred by a complaint filed Dec. 27, 2025 on allegations that stem from Hagen’s marital problems and divorce in November 2025, according to the report — comes months ahead of Hagen’s retention election this fall.

Justice Hagen’s response

In a Jan. 5 letter to the Judicial Conduct Commission after she learned days prior that Utah Supreme Court Justice Matthew Durrant had received an email containing the accusations against her, Hagen denied them. 

“The insinuation that I was ethically compromised while carrying out my official duties is patently false,” she wrote in the letter. She also attached a declaration under penalty of perjury detailing relevant facts and a signed declaration from her adult son affirming that she has consistently denied that a “sexual affair” occurred. 

“While my ex-husband’s accusations of adultery are false and the intimate details of my failed marriage have nothing to do with my judicial duties or my strict adherence to the Code of Judicial Conduct, I have chosen to self-report these allegations to the Commission to officially refute them under oath,” Hagen wrote in that letter. 

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.”

– Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen

“I had no relationship of any kind with the attorney in question while he had cases pending before me,” she added. “Over twenty years ago, he was a close personal friend of mine, but we had very little interaction in the years leading up to my appointment to the Court. After my appointment, I discontinued even that minimal contact because I was aware that he was an attorney in the (redistricting case) that was likely to come before the Court, and I wanted to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.” 

Hagen noted that her “last involvement” in the redistricting case was in October 2024, when she authored the court’s unanimous opinion upholding a district court decision voiding Amendment D, a proposed constitutional amendment tied to the redistricting lawsuit that, if approved by voters, would have solidified the Legislature’s ability to change ballot initiatives. 

“In the spring of 2025, I was struggling with the breakdown of my thirty-year marriage. I reconnected with a number of old friends, including the attorney in question, for emotional support during this difficult time,” she wrote. “In light of our renewed friendship, I voluntarily recused (myself) from all further cases in which the attorney appeared, including a subsequent petition in the (redistricting case).”

Hagen also wrote that about six months ago she disclosed these circumstances to her court colleagues, consulted the court’s attorney “to ensure compliance with my ethical obligations, and reported my ex-husband’s behavior to the court security director.” 

“The insinuation that I was ethically compromised while carrying out my official duties is patently false,” she wrote. “I appreciate having this opportunity to set the record straight.” 

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Utah Supreme Court’s statement issued Friday also noted the timeline of Hagen’s recusals and that her ex-husband’s allegations “post date her involvement” in the redistricting case. 

The Supreme Court also issued a statement from Hagen, in which she said “I never operated under a conflict of interest while performing my judicial duties” and noted that she recused herself from all cases involving Reymann in May 2025. 

“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,” she said. “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 allegations

Hagen’s ex-husband Tobin Hagen did not file the complaint against her. Rather, it was submitted by another attorney, Michael Worley — who previously applied for a clerkship for Hagen but ultimately didn’t accept to instead work for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Worley, in the email reporting the accusations to Durrant, said after he didn’t accept the clerkship with Hagen, he kept in touch with her and her husband, and he interacted with Tobin Hagen on social media. 

Worley told Durrant that he was on Facebook on Dec. 26, 2025 when he saw a post that indicated Tobin Hagen and Diana Hagen had gotten divorced, so he reached out through Facebook messenger to Tobin Hagen to offer his support. 

Worley included a screenshot of a lengthy message he received from Tobin Hagen in response, in which Tobin Hagen alleged his daughter “found some inappropriate texts” between Diana Hagen and Reymann, he accused her of cheating, and he said “she paid me $40,000 to keep quiet” as part of a nondisclosure agreement in the divorce settlement. 

In his email to Durrant, Worley said he had “no knowledge about whether Tobin’s allegations are true,” but he felt an ethical obligation to report them in case they were. 

Advertisement

Advertisement

In the report on the Judicial Conduct Commission’s preliminary investigation into Hagen, the investigator wrote that based on an interview with Tobin Hagen on Jan. 15, 2025, “Tobin did not approve of this complaint being submitted to the JCC but acknowledged” that he had sent the message to Worley. 

“Tobin’s belief that Justice Hagen had an extramarital affair with David Reymann is based on the totality of the circumstances,” the report says, but it also notes “Tobin has no direct evidence that such an affair occured.” 

In that interview, Tobin Hagen told the investigator that their marriage was “deteriorating” in 2024, and that starting in early 2025, Diana Hagen and Reymann would meet for drinks or lunch, sometimes with other people present, and that Diana Hagen was “up front about these meetings.” However, Tobin Hagen said that he later discovered “one such meetup was concealed from him.” 

The investigator also wrote that Tobin Hagen said that in February 2025 he “became aware that Justice Hagen and Reymann were exchanging inappropriate text messages” that “were initially silly and then became more suggestive.” 

Tobin Hagen, however, declined to share copies of the text messages due to a non-disparagement agreement that was signed as part of their divorce, the investigator wrote. He described the text messages as “very flirtatious” with repeated use of the “kissy face emoji” and “love emoji.”  

Tobin Hagen told the investigator, according to the report, that when he confronted Diana Hagen about “the suspicion that she had an affair with Reymann,” she “denied the allegation but noted her 25-year friendship” with him and argued that she could talk with him “whenever she wanted.” 

Need to get in touch?

Have a news tip?

The investigator also wrote in the report that Tobin Hagen said after Diana Hagen found out he had told a friend about one of her text messages to Reymann, she became “very upset and commented that Tobin was putting her job as a Utah Supreme Court justice in jeopardy.” 

When asked about the allegation that Diana Hagen paid Tobin Hagen $40,000 to “keep quiet publicly,” Tobin clarified to the investigator that “as part of the divorce settlement, Justice Hagen wanted Tobin to sign a non-disparagement agreement (NDA), which Tobin was unwilling to do. Justice Hagen offered to contribute $40,000 toward taxes and fees associated with paying off the family home in exchange for Tobin signing the NDA. Tobin agreed.”

The investigator concluded that the allegation that Diana Hagen “committed judicial misconduct related to the $40,000 mentioned in the complaint is unfounded.”

“The language in the complaint implies Justice Hagen attempted to bride (sic) Tobin or something similarly untoward. This is inaccurate,” the investigator wrote. “The $40,000 was a negotiated element of the divorce agreement. This is not indicative of judicial misconduct.” 

Tobin Hagen also told the investigator that he confronted Reymann about having an affair with Hagen, which he said Reymann denied, but “acknowledged regular contact over the 25-year friendship with Justice Hagen.”

While Tobin Hagen wrote in the Facebook message that Worley reported to the Judicial Conduct Commission and Durrant that Diana Hagen “confessed” to the affair, the signed declaration from her son refutes that claim, the investigator wrote. 

Court documents confirm Diana Hagen filed for divorce from Tobin Hagen in August 2025. The settlement agreement was signed on Oct. 23 2025 “and makes no mention of infidelity,” according to the investigator’s report. 

Ultimately, the investigator concluded in the report that “there is insufficient evidence to support an allegation that Justice Hagen engaged in an extramarital affair. Furthermore, there is conflicting guidance on whether such infidelity by a judge in and of itself warrants discipline.” 

The allegations as presented in the complaint are speculative, overstated, and misleading. There is very little credibility to this complaint.”

– Judicial Conduct Commission investigator

“Additional investigative steps could be taken to further investigate the allegation of infidelity,” the investigator wrote in the report, listing examples like interviewing Diana Hagen’s two adult children, Reymann and his wife, and issuing a subpoena for the text messages. “However, such steps would be intrusive and potentially embarrassing for those involved.”

The investigator wrote that “since the allegation of infidelity is based on speculation, it would not be prudent nor fair to Justice Hagen or Reymann for JCC staff to attempt to take any of these investigative steps without JCC approving a full investigation into this complaint.”

The investigator also wrote there is “insufficient evidence” to support the allegation that Justice Hagen failed to properly recuse herself from the redistricting case or that her “impartiality has been compromised.” 

“Overall, the information provided by Tobin during the interview is drastically different than what is alleged in the complainant,” the investigator wrote. “The allegations as presented in the complaint are speculative, overstated, and misleading. There is very little credibility to this complaint.” 

The investigator ultimately recommended the JCC dismiss the allegations for “insufficient evidence of judicial misconduct.” 

Democrats raise concerns about separation of powers; Bar weighs in

In response to the KSL story published Thursday detailing the allegations against Diana Hagen, Utah House and Senate Democrats issued a statement saying they “trust the work of the Judicial Conduct Commission and the process it followed as it previously investigated and addressed this matter.”

“Efforts by the Legislature to investigate a member of the judiciary raise significant concerns over the separation of powers,” House and Senate Democrats said. “This is part of a broader pattern of overstepping judicial independence and sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.”

The Utah State Bar also issued a statement saying that while it “has no role or involvement with the operation of the Judicial Conduct Commission …  the Bar shares the Utah Supreme Court’s concerns regarding the release of confidential and statutorily protected JCC records.”

“We appreciate the important function of the JCC and trust that they conduct their investigations and make findings with careful and thorough consideration,” the Bar said. “We affirm the Court’s statement that the JCC is the sole entity established by the Utah Constitution with the specific authority to ‘investigate and conduct confidential hearings regarding complaints against any justice or judge.’”

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE