Prince Harry’s visa answers about historical drug use should be considered “private personal information”, lawyers acting on behalf of the United States Department of Homeland Security have said.
In his memoir Spare, the prince referenced taking cocaine, marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms. It prompted a conservative think tank in Washington DC to question why he was allowed into the US in 2020.
The Heritage Foundabout brought a lawsuit against the Department for Homeland Security (DHS) after a Freedom of Information request was thrown out. The foundation said it was of “immense public interest”.
However, lawyers on behalf of the DHS have said the Heritage Foundation “have not demonstrated possible government misconduct or any other public interest that would overcome Prince Harry’s privacy interest in these records”. The DHS also said despite the duke being a “public official” in the UK, he is “not a public official in the United States”.
Their submissions to the court said DHS had “provided the maximum amount of information that it can provide regarding the records it possesses” without revealing Harry’s immigration status. In his controversial memoir, the duke said cocaine “didn’t do anything for me”, adding: “Marijuana is different, that actually really did help me.”
The Heritage Foundation’s lawsuit argues that US law “generally renders such a person inadmissible for entry” to the country. In the DHS’s response to the legal claim, they said: “Much like health, financial, or employment information, a person’s immigration information is private personal information.
“If the court accepts Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Government would need to reveal confidential immigration information about Prince Harry, a result the court should not adopt.”
The submissions made by lawyer John Bardo on behalf of DHS also said no “publicly available information, shows that Prince Harry was ever convicted for a drug-related offence.”
Mr Bardo added that any suggestion from the Heritage Foundation of wrongdoing on behalf of the US Government was “purely speculative”.
