Prince Harry’s immigration records are expected to be made public by the end of Tuesday, following a court order issued by a U.S. District Court judge last week. The decision mandates the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to release redacted versions of the documents after a prolonged legal effort led by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
The think tank had initially requested the records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), citing public interest in whether the Duke of Sussex was properly vetted before being granted residency in the United States. Their request was denied, prompting a lawsuit that ultimately led to the judge’s ruling.
The Controversy Over Past Drug Use
At the heart of the legal battle is Prince Harry’s own admissions in his memoir, Spare, where he openly discussed past drug use. The Heritage Foundation argues that since drug use can be grounds for visa denial, the public has a right to know whether immigration authorities followed standard procedures when processing his entry.
“He has talked about it, written about it, and even made money off of it,” said Samuel Dewey, the attorney representing the Heritage Foundation. “By doing so, he has waived any claim to privacy on the matter.”
Court filings suggest that there were limited ways in which Prince Harry could have entered the U.S. in March 2020. If he had a diplomatic visa, it would have required special arrangements due to his status within the Royal Family. Alternatively, he might have disclosed his drug use and applied for a waiver—typically a lengthy process. The Heritage Foundation, however, speculates that he may have bypassed standard procedures altogether.
A Legal and Political Battle
Critics argue that the lawsuit is less about Prince Harry and more about broader concerns regarding U.S. immigration enforcement. The Heritage Foundation has linked the case to accusations from Republican lawmakers that DHS is failing to uphold immigration laws.
“This isn’t just about one individual,” Dewey said. “It’s about ensuring that immigration laws are applied fairly and consistently.”
However, legal experts warn that the decision to release Harry’s immigration records could set a dangerous precedent.
“I am shocked that a federal judge would allow a private entity access to someone’s immigration files,” said immigration attorney Charles Kuck. “This could open the door for people’s personal records to be accessed for political or personal reasons.”
DHS initially denied the FOIA request on privacy grounds, but the court ultimately sided with the Heritage Foundation. Now, the department must release redacted documents detailing Prince Harry’s application process, including his I-485 form (Application for Permanent Residency), financial disclosures, work history, and any supporting documents, such as marriage records.
Will Prince Harry’s Green Card Be Revoked?
While the controversy has sparked heated debate, legal experts believe it is unlikely to have serious consequences for Prince Harry’s residency status.
“If immigration authorities had concerns about his past drug use, they would have addressed them before approving his green card,” Kuck explained. “This lawsuit is more about publicity than any real legal challenge to his immigration status.”
One key question on the I-485 form asks applicants if they have ever violated any controlled substance law in the U.S. or abroad. However, as Kuck points out, the wording of the question is legally complex.
“No rational person would answer ‘yes’ to that question without legal consultation,” he said. “The definition of ‘violation’ is ambiguous and varies by jurisdiction.”
Trump Weighs In
Adding to the controversy, former U.S. President Donald Trump recently commented on the situation in an interview with the New York Post. When asked whether he would deport Prince Harry if re-elected, Trump dismissed the idea.
“I don’t want to do that,” he said. “I’ll leave him alone. He’s got enough problems with his wife. She’s terrible.”
With the release of Prince Harry’s immigration records imminent, the case continues to stir political and legal debate, raising questions about privacy, immigration enforcement, and the boundaries between public interest and personal affairs.
