US accuses South Africa of arming Russia, Title 42 comes to an end: 5 Things podcast

 US accuses South Africa of arming Russia: USA TODAY Domestic Security Correspondent Josh Meyer talks through U.S. claims that South Africa supplied arms to Russia. Plus, Title 42 comes to an end, a man will be charged in the killing of Jordan Neely, and USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze explains the context around a decision on an animal welfare law, and the ACM Awards are in the books.

Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Taylor Wilson: 

Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson and this is 5 Things you need to know Friday, the 12th of May 2023. Today, the US accuses South Africa of cozying up to Russia. Plus, Title 42 is over, and a man will face charges for the killing of Jordan Neely.

♦ 

The US yesterday accused South Africa of secretly providing weapons to Russia last December. And as USA TODAY Domestic Security Correspondent Josh Meyer told me, that's an escalated and already testy geopolitical situation for the Biden administration. Hi, Josh.

Taylor Wilson: 

Josh Meyer: 

How are you?

Taylor Wilson: 

Good, thanks. Thanks for hoppinIt's a very serious concern for the US because in this changing geopolitical landscape that we have, especially over the war in Ukraine, we thought South Africa was one of our steadfast allies, and in recent months, they've shown a very keen interest in being aligned with Russia. There's been visits back and forth by key diplomats. South Africa has refused to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also, they haven't really wanted to participate as much as other countries, or as much as Washington has hoped, in sanctioning Russia for what it's doing.

So when you couple all of that with the fact that there's weapons being loaded onto a Russian ship, a sanctioned Russian ship, by the way, it raises a lot of questions, and clearly the White House is concerned about it.

Taylor Wilson: 

Josh, why is South Africa keeping the door open on relations with Russia?

Josh Meyer: g back on. So the US is accusing South Africa of secretly arming Russia. What are US officials saying specifically here?

That's a good question. I mean I think in terms of the context for this, South Africa has always been a key ally of the United States, but it's also been a very important cog in the US versus Soviet Cold War relations. Going back to pre-apartheid days, the southern tip of Africa has always been a very, very strategic port, this Port Simon's Town where the weapons were offloaded. Because it's at the very southern tip of Africa, it's a very strategic place to get weapons or any other supplies from the eastern side to the western side.

Political analysts and the deputy chairperson of the South African Institute for International Affairs said that the United States has closely watched this very strategic port dating back decades, and that if we accuse Russia of doing something like this, that it's almost entirely impossible that we don't have dead to rights accurate intelligence.

What he said is the United States has a huge interest in Simon's Town and in the cape sea route, and that even during the apartheid era, the United States government and the British government both had an agreement with the apartheid government of South Africa to monitor Soviet shipping going around the cape. So when we see a Russian ship loading up with weapons from South Africa, you can be pretty sure that we know exactly what's going on. And so, it appears that the US ambassador to South Africa called them on it, and we'll wait and see what happens

Taylor Wilson: 

Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to visit South Africa this summer, even though there's an international criminal court arrest warrant out for him. What does the US expect South Africa to do with that dilemma?

Josh Meyer: 

Well, that's another very good question. I mean technically it's called a red notice, an international arrest warrant enforced by Interpol for Putin. And so, we would expect that any of our allies would arrest him if he sets foot on their soil. But I believe South Africa has already said that they're not going to arrest him. They're very eager for him to show up there. It's a big credibility booster for them. That's something that I think is another part of this bigger controversy in which the US is pushing South Africa to take sides, and it appears like it doesn't want to at this point. The worst thing for us would be to push them so hard that they side with Russia against the United States.

Taylor Wilson: 

All right. Josh Meyer, thanks so much.

Josh Meyer: 

My pleasure. Anytime.

♦

Taylor Wilson: 

Title 42 is over. The emergency immigration restriction, which allowed for the easier expulsion of migrants at the border, among other things, came to an end last night. The controversial program had been tied to the federal public health emergency for COVID-19. Border patrol agents can no longer expel migrants for public health reasons. But the Biden administration has a new rule, that migrants seeking asylum at the southern border will be turned away unless they've first applied online or sought protection in a country they've already passed through. For more, be sure to go back and listen to my talk with border reporter Lauren Villagran in the Thursday episode of 5 Things.

Nearly two weeks after a man used a chokehold to restrain and ultimately kill another man on a New York City subway car, the 24-year-old will face criminal charges. Daniel Penny will be arrested and charged for killing Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old Black man experiencing homelessness and mental health problems. Penny, a white US Marine Corps veteran, faces a charge of secondary manslaughter, which could carry a jail term of up to 15 years. Neely's violent death sparked days of protests in New York.

♦ 

The Supreme Court yesterday sided with California in a dispute over an animal welfare law. I spoke with USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze for more. John, welcome back to the show.

John Fritze: 

Hey, thanks for having me.

Taylor Wilson: 

What did they decide here, John?

John Fritze: 

So this case deals with a 2018 ballot initiative passed in California, Proposition 12, that essentially banned the sale of pork products in California. I'm going to not do this as technically as I could because it involves a lot of farming stuff, but basically the idea is if the pigs are in small pens, pens where they can't turn around and so forth. And so, as an animal welfare measure, California said look, we can't sell bacon, pork chops, other pork products in our state unless you guarantee that the pigs are treated well, have large pens.

The issue with this is that California produces almost no pork, although as a large state, it's a huge consumer of pork. The pig farmers in other states like Minnesota and the South said look, we can't do this. This would be a huge imposition, a huge cost. Why does one state get to dictate the terms to us for how we raise pigs in another state? And so, what this really got into was an issue of cross-state commerce and the commerce clause in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court came down on the side of California and said that it didn't implicate some of those broader questions that the law treated California farmers the same way it treated farmers. Now there's a state, so it wasn't like it was discriminating against those out-of-state farmers, and really handed California, I think, a pretty broad win on this question.

Taylor Wilson: 

What did the dissenting opinion argue here?

John Fritze: 

Yeah. So it's what we call a fractured opinion. Justices were all over the map on this. But Chief Justice John Roberts has a very interesting opinion, dissenting in part and agreeing in part, basically saying that, look, courts should be able to and should balance the benefit from laws like this against the potential costs externally. There's a lot of debate about whether courts are in a position to do that. That's kind of a tough thing for courts to do. How do you measure the benefit of an animal welfare law? People have different opinions about that. And so, one of the things Gorsuch is saying is, look, courts can't really do that. Roberts is saying you've got to try. And so, that is a little bit of a technical argument off to the side, but I think potentially important going forward.

Taylor Wilson: 

John, some listeners might be wondering how pig farming affects their lives. You touched on this a little bit, but what's the potential impact beyond pork?

John Fritze: 

Yeah. I mean this is the really important part of this case, and it's tough to get to because you've got to talk about all this other stuff first, and bacon and pork chops and stuff. That's fun and interesting. But there is this significant question here. We're in a moment in the nation where states are passing wildly divergent laws on all kinds of things dealing with education and immigration and abortion and so forth. The real question of this case is can a state pass a law that affects another state?

So, I'll give you a for instance. What if a liberal state passes a law saying, look, you can only sell products in our state if the products are made with labor union skilled work? How do other states respond to that? What if a state passes a law saying, look, we're only going to allow you to import fruit into our state if you can guarantee that the fruit was picked by citizens of the United States and not migrant farm workers? I think the issue here is that it opens up a lot of potential questions about state laws affecting other state laws at a time when we're divided. There's a lot of division in state policies between red states and blue states.

Taylor Wilson: 

USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze, great insight as always. Thanks so much.

John Fritze: 

Thank you.

♦ 

Taylor Wilson: 

A big night for country music is in the books. The Academy of Country Music Awards were hosted by Dolly Parton and Garth Brooks last night outside Dallas. Lainey Wilson and Hardy entered the night as leading nominees, and both walked away with awards, including Album of the Year for Wilson's Bell Bottom Country.

Lainey Wilson: 

Oh my goodness, y'all. For the little girls watching this, this right here, it stands for hard work. If you're going to be a dreamer, you better be a doer.

Taylor Wilson: 

Wilson was also named Female Artist of the Year while Morgan Wallen won Male Artist of the Year. You can read up on all the winners with a link in today's show notes.

Thanks for listening to 5 Things. We're produced by Shannon Rae Green. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Special thanks to Cherie Saunders and Alexis Gustin. I'm Taylor Wilson back tomorrow with another episode of 5 Things.

Josh Meyer: 

The US Ambassador to South Africa, Reuben Brigety, accused South Africa of providing weapons to Russia via a cargo ship that docked secretly at a naval base near the City of Cape Town for three days last December. So this isn't exactly new.

The implication, of course, was that the weapons are being used to help in the war in Ukraine, although he stopped short of saying that. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has said that an investigation's underway, but he refused to answer questions today in Parliament when this came up as to whether this is true or not.