Prince Harry Drugs Case Heads for Court Showdown

Prince Harry’s visa records will be fought over by lawyers for the Biden administration and a conservative think thank.

The Heritage Foundation wants to force the Department of Homeland Security to reveal whether the Duke of Sussex disclosed his past use of recreational drugs on his immigration forms.

They argue that Harry must either have kept his experimentation with cocaine, cannabis, magic mushrooms and ayahuasca a secret or must have been shown favorable treatment by officials.

And the organization raised the prospect a less-than-candid response might lead to his visa being revoked, though some experts have suggested this is unlikely without a criminal conviction.

The two sides will go head-to-head on February 23, when the Department for Homeland Security will attempt to get the lawsuit thrown out.

Judge Carl J. Nichols set the hearing for 2:30 p.m., though it is highly unlikely Prince Harry will be present in court, not least because he is not a party in the case, even though it is about him.

A court filing read: “It is hereby ordered that the parties shall appear in-person for oral argument on the motions before Judge Carl J. Nichols in Courtroom 17 on Friday, February 23, 2024 at 2:30 p.m.”

DHS argued in a court filing seen by Newsweek that it “cannot confirm or deny whether any other records that [Heritage] are seeking exist because the mere acknowledgment of these records would constitute an unwarranted invasion of Prince Harry’s privacy.

“The records are particularly sensitive because releasing them, even in part, would reveal Prince Harry’s status in the United States, which Prince Harry has not disclosed.

“Specifically, the records would reveal the types of documents that Prince Harry used to travel to the United States, his admission status, and any immigration, or non-immigration, benefits that he may have sought.

“Courts consistently hold that a person’s visa or immigration status is private, personal information exempt from disclosure.”

However, Heritage hit back in a later court filing seen by Newsweek, arguing: “[The case] comes about in the main because HRH [His Royal Highness] voluntarily—and for immense profit—admitted in writing to the elements of any number of controlled substance violations. (Indeed, some say HRH has approached the point of bragging and encouraging illegal drug use.)

“The Duke of Sussex did so despite the fact that it is widely known that such admissions can have adverse immigration consequences for non-citizens and despite employing preeminent legal advisors on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Heritage sought “all records within Prince Harry’s Alien Registration file” including “any applications for immigration benefits” and “all records relating to any requests for waiver by Prince Harry.”

Meanwhile, the think tank filed its own motion for a quick win without a trial which will be heard at the same time.

Lawyers said the case focuses on the decisions to admit Harry “into the United States and to allow him to remain to date in light of HRH’s public disclosure in
his ‘tell all’ autobiography Spare of habitual, adult, and recreational illegal drug use.”

Heritage quoted famous British dystopian author George Orwell’s 1945 novel Animal Farm, a veiled broadside against communism in which a movement originally driven by the notion that all animals are equal fell under the control of an elite that argued “some are more equal than others.”

“Every aspect of this case involves the Duke of Sussex,” their filing reads.

“Legally, this is a somewhat unique case with highly limited precedential application because, save for HRH’s extensive disclosure of illegal drug use in Spare and elsewhere for commercial gain, this case could not have been brought.

“But at the end of the day, it is not a case about the Duke of Sussex or his conduct. It is a case both about how our Government operates and shining the light on probable government misconduct in favor of the rich, famous, and powerful in an extraordinarily high profile case.

“The celebrity, notoriety, and extensive public coverage of the case of the Duke of Sussex makes a perfect vessel to answer an age-old question: Are we a ‘government of laws and not of men’ or are ‘[a]ll animals . . . equal, but some animals are more equal than others?'”

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek‘s The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email [email protected]. We’d love to hear from you.