Por Tierney Sneed y Casey Gannon, CNN

El presidente Donald Trump retiró su demanda de US$ 10.000 millones contra el Servicio de Impuestos Internos (IRS), según documentos judiciales, una señal de que la administración se prepara para avanzar con un plan destinado a establecer un fondo de US$ 1.800 millones que compensaría a aquellos que consideren haber sido objeto de investigaciones injustas bajo administraciones anteriores.

El escrito judicial presentado la mañana del lunes no proporciona detalles sobre ningún acuerdo extrajudicial. En cambio, señala que el caso se encontraba aún en una fase muy preliminar. Los abogados de Trump afirmaron que esto significaba que él no necesitaba solicitar permiso para desestimar la demanda, ni el IRS requería dar su consentimiento para dicha desestimación. El documento indicaba que la desestimación se realizaba “con perjuicio”, lo cual impediría a Trump la posibilidad de intentar volver a presentar el caso en el futuro.

En enero, Trump —junto con sus hijos, Donald Trump Jr. y Eric Trump— demandó al IRS y al Departamento del Tesoro por una suma de al menos US$ 10.000 millones. La demanda acusaba al IRS de haber filtrado de manera no autorizada las declaraciones de impuestos de Trump correspondientes a su primer mandato presidencial.

La demanda de Trump alegaba que el IRS no cumplió con su obligación de proteger la información fiscal confidencial, así como la información tributaria de la Organización Trump. Charles Littlejohn, un excontratista del IRS, fue sentenciado a cinco años de prisión por haber filtrado los registros fiscales de Trump, junto con los registros de miles de otras personas.

Trump demandó al IRS en su calidad de ciudadano particular, y no en su calidad de presidente.

Poco después de que Trump presentara la demanda, la jueza federal que preside el caso en Florida —la jueza de distrito Kathleen Williams— expresó su escepticismo respecto a si este constituía el tipo de disputa legal legítima que correspondía tramitar en su tribunal.

La jueza solicitó a un grupo de abogados externos que le presentaran un informe sobre dicha cuestión. Estos abogados también plantearon inquietudes acerca de la idoneidad de que un presidente en ejercicio solicitara una compensación económica por motivos personales contra una agencia gubernamental perteneciente a su propio poder ejecutivo.

Este acuerdo se suma a varios otros alcanzados en el marco de demandas presentadas por aliados de Trump.

En marzo, el Departamento llegó a un acuerdo extrajudicial con Michael Flynn. Flynn había demandado al Gobierno por US$ 50 millones, acusando al FBI de haber intentado tenderle una trampa durante los primeros días de la administración Trump. Como resultado del acuerdo, Flynn recibió una compensación superior al millón de dólares.

Carter Page, exasesor de la campaña de Trump, también llegó a un acuerdo extrajudicial con la administración Trump en el mes de abril. Page había demandado al Departamento de Justicia y al FBI por la vigilancia gubernamental defectuosa a la que fue sometido debido a sus contactos con Rusia en 2016.

Minutos después de que el equipo legal de Trump notificara al tribunal el lunes que se retiraba la demanda, cerca de 100 demócratas de la Cámara de Representantes presentaron un escrito en calidad de “amigos del tribunal”, acusando a Trump de “flagrante actuación en beneficio propio”.

En el escrito señalaron que, si Trump pretendía someter el caso voluntariamente para facilitar dicho acuerdo extrajudicial, el tribunal debería examinar minuciosamente esa maniobra en virtud de una norma legal que le permitiría sancionar a los abogados implicados.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Read more

By Jack Guy, CNN

(CNN) — Spain’s tax authority has been ordered to repay Colombian superstar Shakira more than 55 million euros ($64 million) after a court in Madrid ruled that it had mistakenly pursued her for unpaid taxes.

Tax officials imposed massive fines on the singer in 2021 after concluding that she had spent more than 183 days in Spain in 2011, and was therefore liable to pay personal income tax, according to a statement from the Audiencia Nacional high court published Monday.

However, Shakira was only in Spain for 163 days, meaning she wasn’t a resident of the country for tax purposes, the court added.

Shakira and her representatives hailed a “decisive and historic ruling” in a statement Monday.

“After more than eight years of enduring brutal public targeting, orchestrated campaigns to destroy my reputation, and sleepless nights that ultimately impacted my health and my family’s well-being, the National High Court has finally set the record straight,” the singer said.

“Every step of the process was leaked, distorted, and amplified, using my name and public image to send a threatening message to the rest of the taxpayers. Today, that narrative crumbles, and it does so with the full force of a court ruling,” she added.

The Audiencia Nacional emphasized that its ruling refers only to taxes due in 2011.

In 2023, Shakira settled a separate tax evasion suit related to the period 2012-2014.

The Grammy-winning singer admitted the charges against her and agreed to pay the amount owed in full and an additional fine, according to a statement released by the Barcelona prosecutor’s office at the time.

She paid a total of €17.5 million ($20 million), an amount composed of the taxes owed plus interest, as well as a fine of €7.3 million ($8.5 million), the statement said.

Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of more than eight years in prison if Shakira were convicted on all six counts of tax fraud. But the settlement said that, instead of prison, she would pay additional fines of about $437 a day for a three-year sentence, or just over $470,000.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Al Goodman and Claudia Rebaza contributed to this report.

The post Spanish court orders tax authority to repay Shakira $64 million over wrongful fines appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

By Tierney Sneed, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Monday punted on a fight over the ability of voters to bring Voting Rights Act lawsuits, dodging a major dispute over the landmark civil rights law that the conservative majority had already left on life support with a previous ruling this term.

The justices sent back to lower courts two cases that had teed up claims that only the Justice Department could bring enforcement actions under the law, which bars racial discrimination in voting.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, dissented from the decision – saying she would have summarily resolved the cases to make clear that individuals could bring the claims rather than handing them back to a lower court for further review.

Both cases were challenges that voters – not the Justice Department – had brought to redistricting plans. The justices told the lower courts to take another look at the lawsuits in light of the opinion the conservative majority issued this month that significantly raised the bar for when a Voting Rights Act redistricting case can succeed, but that did not address the cause-of-action question.

The move leaves a final answer on a question that would effectively kill the already thoroughly-weakened statute for another day.

Under President Donald Trump, the Justice Department has shown little interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act and his administration had even argued in favor of the high court’s ruling this month that significantly narrowed the law’s reach in electoral map-drawing.

Courts have long assumed that private individuals could sue under the law in addition to the actions that the Justice Department is authorized to bring, and the Supreme Court has previously taken up VRA cases brought by voters. However, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch have signaled in writings in previous VRA cases that they believe it to be an open question.

In one of the cases, arising out of Mississippi, a lower court affirmed that individuals had the right to sue in court under the VRA. In the other dispute the justices were reviewing, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that only the Justice Department could bring VRA cases.

The Supreme Court previously put that opinion – which set the precedent for Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, the Dakotas and Arkansas – on hold, over the dissent of Thomas, Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Supreme Court puts off fight over who can sue to enforce what’s left of the Voting Rights Act appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review a sex discrimination case from former NCAA basketball coach MaChelle Joseph, who alleged that Georgia Tech violated federal anti-discrimination laws by providing more resources for the men’s basketball team than for the women’s program.

Joseph, who was fired as head coach in 2019, sued under several laws, including Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. But workplace discrimination cases are typically brought instead under Title VII, which is specifically geared toward employment but which also includes additional requirements and caps on how much can be awarded in damages.

The question for the Supreme Court, which has divided federal appeals courts, is whether Joseph may bring her claims under Title IX. The answer will have important ramifications for both publicly funded schools, which could put them on the hook for larger damage awards in sex discrimination cases, and employees, who may have another avenue to pursue those claims – or have that route closed off.

Joseph told the Supreme Court that the case would have “far-reaching implications.”

A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2024 that Joseph could not rely on Title IX. The full appeals court declined to review that decision last year.

That ruling, Joseph said, “undermines the uniform enforcement of Title IX across the country.” And, she said, “it threatens to destabilize enforcement of antidiscrimination provisions under” other federal laws that bar discrimination but lack explicit language authorizing lawsuits to enforce those provisions.

The case is consolidated with a similar suit filed by Thomas Crowther, an art professor whose position on the faculty of Augusta University was not renewed in 2021 after reports of inappropriate conduct, including sexual harassment, according to court records. Crowther denied wrongdoing and argued that he was never given an adequate opportunity to contest the allegations.

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to take up the appeal to resolve the different approaches taken by federal appeals courts. The Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to uphold the appeals court ruling against Joseph and Crowther.

The high court has expressed skepticism in past cases about people being able to file lawsuits absent an explicit authorization in the law passed by Congress.

“Title IX does not provide employees of federally funded educational institutions a private right of action to sue for sex discrimination in employment,” the Trump administration told the court.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Supreme Court to weigh appeal from former Georgia Tech basketball coach suing over sex discrimination appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

* WHAT…Dangerous rip currents and breaking waves due to
elevated surf expected.

* WHERE…Santa Barbara County Southwestern Coast and Santa
Barbara County Southeastern Coast.

* WHEN…Until 9 AM PDT this morning.

* IMPACTS…There is an increased risk of ocean drowning. Rip
currents can pull swimmers and surfers out to sea. Waves can
wash people off beaches and rocks, and capsize small boats
nearshore.

* ADDITIONAL DETAILS…Minor Beach erosion and isolated minor
coastal flooding is possible. Most likely during the evening
high tides (7pm to 11pm) Sunday night.
Remain out of the water due to hazardous swimming conditions, or
stay near occupied lifeguard towers. Rock jetties can be deadly
in such conditions, stay off the rocks.

The post Beach Hazards Statement issued May 18 at 7:02AM PDT until May 18 at 9:00AM PDT by NWS Los Angeles/Oxnard CA appeared first on News Channel 3-12.