The Heritage Foundation argued that the public deserved to know if DHS had granted Harry any exemptions or leniencies in light of his admissions. Under normal circumstances, U.S. visa applicants are required to disclose any drug use, which can lead to rejection or additional scrutiny in the application process. Despite these concerns, the judge’s ruling, by being sealed, avoids making any explicit details about Harry’s visa or potential leniencies publicly available.

Legal Precedents and Considerations

Immigration law experts have noted that while drug use is generally a red flag for visa applicants, there are pathways to admission even for those who have admitted to previous drug use. The case, however, has raised broader questions about the fairness and consistency of U.S. immigration enforcement. It is unknown if Harry’s celebrity status played any role in the handling of his visa application, and the sealed ruling leaves room for speculation.

Additionally, under U.S. law, drug use disclosed after entry into the country, such as through a memoir, does not automatically trigger deportation or visa cancellation. The DHS’s refusal to release Harry’s visa records—despite the public interest—further fuels debate over the transparency and fairness of how immigration laws are applied to individuals with high profiles.

The Heritage Foundation’s Argument

The Heritage Foundation, which pursued the FOIA lawsuit, has expressed disappointment with the closure of the case and the sealed ruling. They maintain that the public deserves to know whether Prince Harry was treated differently than ordinary applicants. The case, however, highlights a tension between the public’s right to know and the privacy rights of individuals, particularly those with a high level of fame and media attention.

Despite the Foundation’s push for transparency, the government’s stance on withholding the records reflects the complexities of balancing public interest with personal privacy, especially under the protections afforded by U.S. immigration law. The sealed ruling may indicate that no significant irregularities were found, but without public access to the decision, speculation remains.

What’s Next?

Although the case has been closed, Prince Harry’s visa status may remain a point of public interest, especially in light of upcoming political dynamics. Notably, former U.S. President Donald Trump hinted that, if re-elected, he might re-examine Prince Harry’s visa status, potentially opening up further political debates about immigration policies for high-profile individuals.

For now, the case’s quiet closure suggests that both the U.S. government and Prince Harry prefer to avoid further public scrutiny, keeping the specifics of his visa application confidential.