Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry has found himself embroiled in yet another controversy, this time concerning his US immigration records .
A legal battle that has spanned nearly two years took a fresh turn when a Washington DC-based think tank, The Heritage Foundation , called for the case to be reopened. The think tank claims that certain submissions by the US government were made in secret, raising concerns over the fairness of the proceedings.
In September, a judge ruled that the Duke of Sussex’s US visa application should remain private, despite Harry’s public admission of drug use in his memoir Spare. The Heritage Foundation had sought access to these records, arguing that Harry waived his right to privacy by divulging personal details in the book.
Their Freedom of Information Act request, which was initially rejected by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), questioned how the royal was able to relocate to the US after admitting to taking cocaine and other illegal substances.
Judge Carl J Nichols dismissed the foundation’s arguments, stating that the public did not have a "strong interest" in the disclosure of the Duke’s immigration records. He emphasized that, like any foreign national, Prince Harry has a legitimate privacy interest in his immigration status, and that his public statements on drug use did not eliminate this privacy right.
However, The Heritage Foundation is now seeking to overturn this ruling, alleging that the US government’s private submissions to the court violated standard legal procedures. In a new court filing, the think tank claims that ex-parte proceedings those involving only one party were improperly conducted and that certain documents were not made available for review.
The lack of transparency, they argue, has compromised their ability to prepare for an appeal, leading them to accuse the government of “agency bad faith.”
The foundation’s 13-page motion calls for the court to vacate its previous opinion, unseal ex-parte correspondence, and allow further legal issues to be raised. They also argue that the secrecy surrounding the case has left both the public and the think tank in the dark regarding the judge’s decision.
Visa applicants to the US are legally required to declare any history of drug use, and while this does not automatically result in a visa denial, failure to disclose such information can lead to deportation. In some high-profile cases, celebrities like Nigella Lawson have been barred from entering the US due to past drug admissions.
The Heritage Foundation's lawsuit aims to question whether the Duke received any special treatment in the immigration process. Despite the court’s ruling, the think tank has indicated that they may still pursue an appeal.
A legal battle that has spanned nearly two years took a fresh turn when a Washington DC-based think tank, The Heritage Foundation , called for the case to be reopened. The think tank claims that certain submissions by the US government were made in secret, raising concerns over the fairness of the proceedings.
In September, a judge ruled that the Duke of Sussex’s US visa application should remain private, despite Harry’s public admission of drug use in his memoir Spare. The Heritage Foundation had sought access to these records, arguing that Harry waived his right to privacy by divulging personal details in the book.
Their Freedom of Information Act request, which was initially rejected by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), questioned how the royal was able to relocate to the US after admitting to taking cocaine and other illegal substances.
Judge Carl J Nichols dismissed the foundation’s arguments, stating that the public did not have a "strong interest" in the disclosure of the Duke’s immigration records. He emphasized that, like any foreign national, Prince Harry has a legitimate privacy interest in his immigration status, and that his public statements on drug use did not eliminate this privacy right.
However, The Heritage Foundation is now seeking to overturn this ruling, alleging that the US government’s private submissions to the court violated standard legal procedures. In a new court filing, the think tank claims that ex-parte proceedings those involving only one party were improperly conducted and that certain documents were not made available for review.
The lack of transparency, they argue, has compromised their ability to prepare for an appeal, leading them to accuse the government of “agency bad faith.”
The foundation’s 13-page motion calls for the court to vacate its previous opinion, unseal ex-parte correspondence, and allow further legal issues to be raised. They also argue that the secrecy surrounding the case has left both the public and the think tank in the dark regarding the judge’s decision.
Visa applicants to the US are legally required to declare any history of drug use, and while this does not automatically result in a visa denial, failure to disclose such information can lead to deportation. In some high-profile cases, celebrities like Nigella Lawson have been barred from entering the US due to past drug admissions.
The Heritage Foundation's lawsuit aims to question whether the Duke received any special treatment in the immigration process. Despite the court’s ruling, the think tank has indicated that they may still pursue an appeal.
You may also like
Akshay Kumar meets world's biggest authority on Artificial Intelligence
RB Leipzig manager explains what he 'didn't like' vs Liverpool after Champions League 'suffering'
Who was Elizabeth Francis? America's oldest living person dies at 115
Delhi BJP President Virendra Sachdeva takes a dip in polluted Yamuna river
U by Emaar and Emirates Holidays announce partnership to offer exclusive benefits to members
