Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.
Over the “strongest possible” objections from the federal prosecutor handling the case, leaders at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., quashed plans to bring civil rights charges against an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent accused of shooting a Venezuelan immigrant and then lying about it.
The agent, 52-year-old Christian Castro, allegedly shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg in Minneapolis this January during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s immigration blitz that sent thousands of federal agents into the state. The incident was one of three shootings by immigration agents in the city, the other two of which were fatal.
Federal prosecutors in Minnesota had been preparing to charge Castro with deprivation of rights under color of law for the shooting of Sosa-Celis, according to several people familiar with the case. Those charges are similar to the ones leveled against Minneapolis police officers accused in George Floyd’s killing and can carry hefty prison sentences.
Late on Tuesday, Matthew Evans, the assistant U.S. attorney in Minnesota in charge of the case, told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and other victims to prepare for Castro to be charged “only with False Statements,” according to an email that was reviewed by ProPublica.
That charge would likely carry a far less severe punishment if he were convicted.
“This is being directed by the Main Justice and the US Attorney,” Evans wrote in a remarkably candid account of internal deliberations. “I objected in the strongest possible terms and fought it as hard as I could. It wasn’t enough.”
He wrote that the false statement charges could come soon and would likely be filed under seal.
“It has been an honor and a privilege to try to get justice for your clients,” Evans concluded the email.
A DOJ official said civil rights charges require consultation with the civil rights division in Washington, and “any charging decisions that come out of such investigations are collaborative and deliberative and adhere to the facts and law of that specific case and controversy.”
The agency “has not yet reached a conclusion on this matter and will never rush an investigative process and the thorough review of all evidence,” the official said.
Evans and a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota declined to comment. An attorney for Sosa-Celis did not return phone calls from a reporter. Castro, who has an outstanding warrant in Minnesota for this case, could not be reached for comment.
Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department’s civil rights division has been thinned and has dropped some Biden-era oversight of law enforcement agencies. This move by the DOJ is likely to fuel further concerns that the department is operating more in support of President Donald Trump’s political agenda than to preserve the rule of law. Earlier this year, a ProPublica analysis found that in almost every instance of immigration agents shooting people, Trump’s administration blamed the injured and dead within hours of the incident. In many of those cases, federal or local police declined to investigate the agents.
Castro, who was put on leave by the Department of Homeland Security, is also facing multiple state felony charges in Minnesota, including assault with a dangerous weapon. After he left Minneapolis and returned to Texas, Minnesota officials had requested state officials there extradite Castro to face the charges, but Texas Gov. Greg Abbott refused to cooperate. Castro had been held for 90 days in jail while the two states fought over the extradition. He was released last week.
Sosa-Celis was shot on Jan. 14, as Castro and another ICE agent chased Alfredo Aljorna, an immigrant from Venezuela, after a traffic stop. Aljorna ran to his home, which he shared with Sosa-Celis. The two men made it inside after a brief scramble, and Castro fired through the closed door, “knowing [the home] was occupied by several people,” according to state charging documents. One witness said there were two children in the house when Castro shot into it. Sosa-Celis was hit in the leg.
ICE agents then deployed tear gas into the home and took the men and their partners into custody, according to the documents and other court records.
DHS originally said Castro and the other agent were ambushed by the men and beaten with a shovel or broomstick, making Castro fear for his life and fire in self-defense. DHS called Sosa-Celis and Aljorna “violent criminal illegal aliens,” and federal prosecutors charged them with assault.
The next month, however, they dropped the charges against both men, and the DHS backed off its narrative in a rare admission of possible wrongdoing of its officers. “Video evidence has revealed the sworn testimony of the two agents appeared to be false,” then-acting ICE director Todd Lyons said in a statement.
After Castro’s release from jail, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who is leading the state’s prosecution against him, said she worried that Castro will flee to Mexico.
Reached for comment Wednesday, Moriarty compared the Justice Department’s decision to overrule Evans to its actions after ICE agents killed Renee Good. A week before shooting Sosa-Celis, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot Good in her car. Agents alleged she drove toward them, but video of the incident showed Good’s wheels turned away from them when they shot her. Federal authorities first agreed to a joint investigation, but Justice Department officials later refused to cooperate with state police, deeming any review of the fatal shooting unnecessary.
Press freedom is under attack
As Trump cracks down on political speech, independent media is increasingly necessary.
Truthout produces reporting you won’t see in the mainstream: journalism from the frontlines of global conflict, interviews with grassroots movement leaders, high-quality legal analysis and more.
Our work is possible thanks to reader support. Help Truthout catalyze change and social justice — make a tax-deductible monthly or one-time donation today.
Facts Only
* Christian Castro, a 52-year-old ICE agent, allegedly shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg on January 14 in Minneapolis.
* The shooting occurred during Operation Metro Surge when Castro fired through a closed door into a residence.
* DHS initially claimed Castro acted in self-defense after being ambushed with a shovel or broomstick.
* ICE Director Todd Lyons later stated video evidence indicated the agents' sworn testimony appeared false.
* Federal prosecutors in Minnesota prepared civil rights charges for deprivation of rights under color of law.
* DOJ leadership in Washington, D.C. overruled these plans, directing that Castro be charged only with "False Statements."
* Castro faces state felony charges in Minnesota, including assault with a dangerous weapon.
* Texas Governor Greg Abbott refused to extradite Castro to Minnesota, leading to Castro's release from a Texas jail last week.
* Another ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, shot Renee Good in her car one week prior to the Sosa-Celis incident.
* The DOJ declined to cooperate with state police regarding the investigation into the shooting of Renee Good.
Executive Summary
Federal officials in Washington, D.C. have blocked Minnesota prosecutors from bringing civil rights charges against ICE agent Christian Castro, who shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis during an immigration operation in January. While the local prosecutor sought charges for deprivation of rights under color of law, DOJ leadership directed that Castro be charged only with making false statements. This decision follows a reversal by ICE leadership, who admitted that video evidence contradicted the agents' initial claims of self-defense.
The situation is complicated by a jurisdictional conflict; Texas Governor Greg Abbott refused to extradite Castro to Minnesota to face state felony assault charges, resulting in Castro's recent release from custody. Simultaneously, concerns have been raised regarding a pattern of DOJ behavior, specifically citing a separate fatal shooting of Renee Good where federal authorities allegedly hindered state investigations. The DOJ maintains that charging decisions are collaborative, deliberative, and based on the specific facts of each case, noting that the investigative process is ongoing.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the Department of Justice is systematically shielding federal agents from accountability for civil rights abuses to protect a specific political agenda. It posits that the rule of law is being superseded by institutional loyalty, where internal "False Statement" charges serve as a superficial substitute for the more severe consequences of constitutional violations.
The narrative relies on a specific juxtaposition: the "candid" internal dissent of a local prosecutor against the opaque directives of "Main Justice." This framing creates a moral binary between the frontline pursuit of justice and a distant, politically motivated bureaucracy. However, the piece remains grounded in verifiable contradictions—specifically the ICE Director's own admission that agent testimony was contradicted by video evidence.
Patterns detected: none
The root cause is a clash of paradigms regarding sovereign immunity and law enforcement oversight. It echoes historical patterns where federal agents operating under "emergency" or "surge" mandates are granted wider latitude, while the mechanisms for oversight are intentionally thinned. The unstated assumption is that the DOJ's refusal to bring civil rights charges is a political act rather than a legal determination of evidentiary sufficiency.
The implication is a degradation of human agency for non-citizens, who find themselves in a legal vacuum where federal protections are overruled by federal leadership and state protections are blocked by executive refusal of extradition.
Bridge Questions:
1. How would the legal outcome differ if the "False Statements" charge were proven in court versus the "Deprivation of Rights" charge?
2. What specific legal threshold distinguishes a "civil rights violation" from a "false statement" in the eyes of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division?
3. To what extent does the refusal of extradition by a governor influence the federal government's appetite for pursuing high-profile charges?
Counterstrike Scan: An influence campaign would use this to argue that the entire federal legal system is a sham designed to protect the powerful, using these specific cases to incite general distrust in all federal law enforcement. The current content avoids this by focusing on documented internal disputes and specific legal filings.
Clean.
