Lead: On Feb. 12–13, 2026, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota moved to dismiss criminal charges against Julio C. Sosa-Celis and a co-defendant in connection with a Jan. 14 shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minneapolis. The filing, submitted by U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen, said newly discovered evidence is “materially inconsistent” with the government’s earlier assertions and asked for dismissal with prejudice. The shooting had already provoked hours of tense protests and a large federal law enforcement presence in the city. The court action marks an unusual public reversal by federal prosecutors in a case tied to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations.
Key Takeaways
- U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen filed to dismiss charges on Feb. 12–13, 2026, citing evidence that contradicts prior government allegations.
- The shooting occurred on Jan. 14, 2026; the wounded man is identified as Julio C. Sosa-Celis, and a co-defendant is Alfredo A. Aljorna.
- Initial federal accounts described multiple attackers (originally three) and claimed the men assaulted an ICE agent with a shovel and broom; official descriptions have since changed.
- The Department of Homeland Security initially said the defendants tried to kill the agent; that characterization has been publicly disputed as details shifted.
- Thousands of federal agents had been deployed to Minneapolis under the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement actions, and the shooting prompted hours of protests at the scene.
- Rosen, who was nominated by President Trump as U.S. attorney for Minnesota, asked for dismissal “with prejudice,” meaning the charges could not be refiled on the same record.
Background
The incident occurred on the night of Jan. 14, 2026, as federal immigration agents operating in Minneapolis encountered a group of people near the location where the shooting later took place. The agents were part of a broader deployment ordered by the federal government as part of an intensified immigration enforcement campaign in Minnesota.
Federal officials initially released a version of events describing the wounded man and his co-defendant as violent agitators who assaulted an ICE agent with implements described as a shovel and a broom. The Department of Homeland Security and other administration figures, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, framed the encounter as an attempted homicide of an agent.
Soon after, discrepancies emerged between early public statements and charging papers or courtroom testimony. Officials altered key details such as which man allegedly fled in a vehicle before the shooting and how many people were said to have attacked the agent. Those changes prompted scrutiny from defense lawyers, local officials, and community advocates.
Main Event
On Feb. 12–13, 2026, U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen filed a court document asking the judge to dismiss the criminal charges against Julio C. Sosa-Celis and Alfredo A. Aljorna. Rosen stated that new evidence discovered in the federal inquiry was materially inconsistent with earlier allegations made in charging papers and in prior testimonies. The motion sought dismissal with prejudice, signaling prosecutors do not intend to pursue the same charges again on the present record.
The original charging document and public accounts had presented the episode as an attack on an ICE agent during which multiple people allegedly assaulted the agent and one of the men later was shot. Federal officials initially asserted that both men were Venezuelan nationals in the United States unlawfully; those immigration-status claims remain part of the public record from early statements.
After the shooting, Minneapolis saw hours of protests near the site, where demonstrators and residents confronted a significant federal law-enforcement presence. The confrontation took place amid heightened tensions over the federal immigration crackdown and the visible deployment of thousands of agents to the city, which local leaders and activists criticized as heavy-handed.
The government’s account evolved in public filings and statements: the number of alleged assailants described by officials changed, and descriptions of who fled or acted first were altered. Those shifts formed the basis for Rosen’s statement that some previously asserted facts are inconsistent with newly reviewed materials in the investigation.
Analysis & Implications
The prosecutor’s decision to seek dismissal is notable for its admission that federal statements and charging allegations were contradicted by later evidence. Such an acknowledgment from a U.S. attorney is uncommon and raises questions about the accuracy of initial field reports and the process by which information was vetted before public release.
Politically, the reversal touches on a fraught national debate about aggressive immigration enforcement and federal involvement in local policing. The case has already been used in public arguments by administration allies to justify hardline measures, and the new filing may dampen some earlier claims while fueling criticisms that the deployment and messaging were rushed.
Legally, dismissal with prejudice prevents refiling on the same set of allegations, but it does not preclude additional investigations if separate evidence emerges. For the defendants, the move could mean the immediate end of these federal criminal proceedings, though collateral consequences such as immigration enforcement actions may remain possible under separate civil procedures.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Initial Federal Account | Later/Charged Record |
|---|---|---|
| Number of alleged attackers | Three (early DHS statements) | Two (charging papers) |
| Use of tools against agent | Shovel and broom (reported) | Alleged in early statements; description questioned later |
| Flight before shooting | Specific individual fled in car (initial) | Account of who fled changed in later filings |
| Prosecutor action | Charges filed (initial) | Dismissal with prejudice motion (Feb. 12–13, 2026) |
The table illustrates how public descriptions shifted over weeks: some facts first circulated by federal agencies were altered in subsequent charging documents or courtroom submissions. That pattern has practical consequences for prosecutorial credibility and for public trust in departmental statements during high-profile enforcement actions.
Reactions & Quotes
Supporters of the defendants and many community organizers said Rosen’s filing vindicates early skepticism about official claims and called for fuller accountability for the federal response in Minneapolis.
“The prosecutor’s filing confirms what residents and witnesses have said: the initial federal narrative did not hold up to scrutiny.”
Local community organizer (paraphrased)
Federal officials including Department of Homeland Security spokespeople initially defended the account released in January; after the prosecutor’s filing, some statements were clarified or revised. Legal observers emphasized that a motion to dismiss on the stated grounds shifts attention to investigative procedures and interagency information-sharing.
“When charging decisions turn on preliminary field reports, there is a heightened need for careful review before public release.”
Criminal procedure expert (paraphrased)
Defense attorneys for the men argued the new filing demonstrates that the initial allegations were unreliable; prosecutors countered that their obligation is to follow the evidence as it emerges, which Rosen’s document purports to reflect.
Unconfirmed
- Precise contents of the newly discovered evidence cited by Rosen are not fully described in public filings and remain subject to judicial review.
- Whether disciplinary or investigatory steps will follow for individual federal officers involved in information releases has not been publicly confirmed.
Bottom Line
The U.S. attorney’s motion to dismiss charges tied to the Jan. 14, 2026, ICE shooting is an uncommon public concession that earlier federal allegations conflict with evidence developed in the investigation. It underscores how rapidly circulating accounts in high-profile enforcement operations can change when subjected to closer scrutiny.
For Minneapolis and for national debates over immigration enforcement, the episode may prompt calls for clearer protocols about how facts are gathered and communicated by federal agencies. The dismissal with prejudice resolves the immediate criminal case as filed, but it leaves open questions about administrative review, agency accountability, and how law-enforcement narratives are vetted before public release.
Sources
- The New York Times — news reporting on the prosecutor’s filing and the Jan. 14, 2026, shooting (media).