Prince Harry’s US visa ruling hidden from public

Heritage Foundation brought the case as it queried how the Duke had been able to move to US having admitted in his memoir to taking drugs

The latest ruling in a lawsuit seeking the release of the Duke of Sussex’s US visa records has been hidden from the public.
The case, brought by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington DC, called on the US government to open its dossier on Prince Harry under freedom of information laws.
It questioned how the Duke had been able to move to the US having admitted in his memoir, Spare, that he had taken cocaine and other drugs.
The case was lodged in January 2023, shortly after the book was published, and was being heard before Judge Carl J Nichols.
Court records show that it was closed on Monday Sept 9 when two sealed orders were filed and a sealed “memorandum opinion”.
Sealed rulings are inaccessible to the public but it could be unsealed at a later date.
The Heritage Foundation could still appeal the ruling.
The development suggests that the Duke’s visa paperwork will remain private.
In Spare, Prince Harry admitted he had taken drugs including marijuana, cocaine and psychedelic mushrooms.
Visa applicants are legally obliged to declare whether they have taken drugs. While it does not constitute an automatic ban, failure to do so can lead to deportation.
Anyone classed as a “drug abuser” is in danger of being deemed “inadmissible” and celebrities including Nigella Lawson have been prevented from entering the country after admitting drug use.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had argued in court that visa and immigration records were deemed “personal information exempt from disclosure”.
But the Heritage Foundation said the Duke had waived his right to privacy when he “sold every aspect of his private life for, in some estimates, over $135 million”.
In a court filing, the think tank suggested that he had even “bragged” about his drug use simply to make money.
The DHS insisted that confessions made in a book could not be considered “proof” of his behaviour.
John Bardo, a lawyer for the DHS, told the judge in February “the book isn’t sworn testimony or proof” that the Duke took drugs.
“Saying something in a book doesn’t necessarily make it true,” he added.
Nile Gardiner, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, said the suggestion the Duke had fabricated his drug use was a “ridiculous argument”.
Pressure on the DHS mounted earlier this year when campaigners seized upon a comment made by Jane Hartley, the American ambassador to London, who said the Duke would not be deported while Joe Biden was president.
Her remarks were described by the Heritage Foundation as “extraordinary”.
The issue had even become political, with Donald Trump refusing to rule out deporting the Duke if he became president.
The Heritage Foundation insisted that the development did not signal the end of the road.
Samuel Dewey, a lawyer for the think tank, told The Telegraph: “We look forward to seeing the judge’s decision.
“Plaintiffs do not have access to the order. This is part of the usual progress of an unusual case.”
Kyle Brosnan, chief counsel for the Oversight Project, said: “Prince Harry repeatedly admitted to using illegal drugs in his memoir. This fact alone makes him inadmissible into the United States. We sued to get answers to a simple question of whether the government gave Prince Harry preferential treatment when he entered the country.”
“It appears the judge has ruled and that ruling is under seal. We know nothing about how the judge ruled. No one should read into the order, or the fact that it is under seal. We have always said this case is unique and opinions can be initially sealed in such cases. We will continue to monitor the situation.”
The Duke’s office has never publicly commented on the case.
When the Sussexes moved to the US, a spokesman for Prince Harry insisted that in applying for a visa he would “follow the same legal requirements as everyone else”.