Prince Harry Visa Ruling ‘Suspicious,’ Heritage Foundation Says

A judge has ruled that Prince Harry’s visa records should remain private, but the think tank behind the lawsuit is considering an appeal.
The Heritage Foundation sued the Biden administration to force the publication of the Duke of Sussex’s application to enter the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security fought the case, arguing Harry had a right to privacy, and won on Monday.
However, the Heritage Foundation has now said it is exploring an appeal and suggested that the case for former President Donald Trump deporting Harry if he regains the White House “just got a lot more compelling.”
Newsweek reported that the lawsuit had been terminated earlier in September. On Monday, a memorandum of the judge’s decision was made public, with several passages redacted.
Mike Howell, executive director of the think tank’s Oversight Project, said in a statement to Newsweek: “The Prince Harry scandal just got a lot more suspicious. While our case is far from over as we explore appeal, I’d say that these very curious redactions point to something serious afoot.
“President Trump has already suggested that Prince Harry will be deported next year and the case for that just got a lot more compelling.
“Americans deserve an immigration system with both secure borders and also fairly applied rules for high-profile immigrants like Harry.”
The Heritage Foundation argued that Prince Harry’s account of taking drugs, including cannabis, magic mushrooms, cocaine and ayahuasca, in his memoir, Spare, should have ruled out his entry into the U.S. if he disclosed his experiences in immigration papers.
They attempted to force the Biden administration to publish his application to determine whether Harry lied or was granted preferential treatment because of his royal status.
“It certainly appears that Harry was given special treatment,” Howell’s statement said, “and now we know it for something so serious that it involves extensive redactions.
“Americans will know the full story soon enough. Perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Markle will tell us what’s beneath the redactions on their next Netflix special.”
Judge Carl Nichols wrote in his memorandum, seen by Newsweek: “The government argues that the Duke has a privacy interest that outweighs any public interest in those records and has therefore withheld them (and, with respect to one category, has declined to confirm whether they exist at all).
“Following in camera review of certain records and associated declarations, the Court agrees that the Duke’s privacy interest outweighs any public interest, and therefore grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Heritage is a right-wing organization and describes its stance on immigration on its website: “The debate is not about whether we should allow immigration — it’s about how we do so in a way that protects American sovereignty, respects the rule of law, and is beneficial to all Americans.”
“We must respect the consent of the governed,” Heritage continues, “that is the will of the people. Individuals who are not citizens do not have a right to American citizenship without the consent of the American people.
“That consent is expressed through the laws of the United States. Through those laws, we the people invite individuals from other countries, under certain conditions, to join us as residents and fellow citizens.”
One redacted section of the memorandum reads: “In particular, the summary judgment record reflects that the Duke has never disclosed publicly (among other things) the following facts: [redacted text].
“That is the ‘type of information that a person would ordinarily not wish to make known about himself’ and therefore the government has demonstrated that the Duke retains a privacy interest in these records.”
Another section reads: “As described in more detail above, Heritage’s first argument is based on its contention that in March 2020 the Duke entered the United States either by disclosing his past drug use (and was admitted inappropriately) or failing to disclose his past drug use. [Redacted text.]
“As Heritage puts it, ‘[I]f the records fail to shed light on those questions, or show that in fact the expected impropriety did not occur then the case immediately is at an end; there is no need to evaluate the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ asserted public interest or conduct the complex balancing inquiry.'”
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 Charles and Queen Camilla, William and Kate, Meghan Markle 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.