Edwin Cruz was the Area Port Director for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), part of Homeland Security, when he stepped over the line with a subordinate. (Cruz v Homeland Security CAFC No. 2024-1820 (nonprecedential) 12/11/2025)
Having become Director in 2016, Cruz supervised more than 400 employees and was the highest-ranking CBP official in the region. Unfortunately for him, Cruz began a 2-year affair with one of his subordinates. Both were married to others at the time, and the subordinate happened to be married to another CBP officer who was also under Cruz.
While it’s predictable what happened to make this house of cards tumble, it turns out the married subordinates came forward, and an investigation ensued. CBP initiated removal charges against Cruz: conduct unbecoming, misuse of government property for engaging in sex, and using government property for other than office purposes.
The deciding official concluded that management had no confidence in Cruz and that his conduct impacted morale and local operations since it was widely known within the workforce that the affair was happening. In July 2022, CPB removed Cruz. As was his right, he appealed the removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Following a hearing, the administrative judge sustained the three charges and upheld his removal. (Opinion pp. 1-3)
As the appeals court finds, it is “undisputed” that the misconduct occurred. As to Cruz’s argument that the supervisor-subordinate relationship was a “deficient ground for the removal” and therefore the agency was wrong to rely on that to support all three charges. The court made short shrift of this argument, stating, “…removal for engaging in a sexual relationship with a subordinate officer was not unreasonable given the evidence. The record supports the agency’s determination that [his] actions undermined the agency’s confidence in his ability to fulfill his responsibilities as Director in accordance with CBP’s ethical and professional standards.” (p. 4)
Cruz’s argument that he was unfairly punished for private conduct fell on deaf ears. As the court points out, this “conduct was not purely private.” (P. 5)
Cruz further argued that such conduct was not “expressly forbidden by CBP policies” and that after the dust settled, the agency articulated a policy on fraternization. The court’s response to this one: “on several occasions, we have approved an agency’s reliance on ‘common sense’ standards.” Sure, the agency clarified its policies, but this “does not undermine the reasonableness” of the agency’s actions in the instant situation. (P. 6)
In short, Mr. Cruz’s removal is affirmed.
