The public will not, for now, be able to see Prince Harry’s visa documents despite his publicly-admitted illegal drug use, a judge has ruled, in a case involving the Duke of Sussex’s visa to America and whether he was given preferential treatment by immigration enforcement. 

Prince Harry’s privacy interest relating to his visa documents “outweighs any public interest,” Judge Carl Nichols of the District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in a filing released on Monday. The case, brought by the conservative Heritage Foundation as it sought to compel the Department of Homeland Security to release Harry’s visa records, centered around the duke’s candid descriptions of illegal drug use in his bestselling memoir “Spare,” released in January 2023, in which he attacked his family to much publicity. Heritage contended that the drug use, including using psychedelic mushrooms and cocaine, raised questions about whether immigration authorities were equally applying the law, since visa applicants legally must disclose whether they’ve “violated, or engaged in a conspiracy to violate, any law relating to controlled substances.” For the past three years, Harry’s been living in a mansion in California with his American wife, Meghan Markle, and his visa-related documents have been kept private.

While the drug use has been the focus of the lawsuit, there has also been much speculation about whether Harry has been granted a special A-Head of State visa, which would allow him tax breaks and keep aspects of the royal family’s finances private. Some legal experts have theorized that Harry is traveling on this rare visa, for which he could qualify without being a “working” royal or government official.

The King of England is officially the head of state in Great Britain, though he has only ceremonial powers. The UK’s foreign office, however, uses so-called “working royals” for meaningful diplomatic work, usually visiting former colonies of the British Empire to maintain good relations. So a diplomatic visa could make sense, and, according to one London law firm, it could even make sense for Prince Harry despite having lost his “working royal” privileges when he moved to the U.S. in 2020 and, along with Ms. Markle, started attacking the royal family.

“Most A-1 diplomats need to be coming to the United States on behalf of their national government primarily to engage in official activities for that government. But a Head of State meets the eligibility for an A-1 visa “regardless of the purpose of the visit to the United States.” as the London-based Chavin Immigration Law office notes. “If he is on an A-1 visa, Prince Harry does not need to be coming to the US solely to work on behalf of the British government.”

Why someone who is fifth in line to the throne (following his estranged brother, the Prince of Wales, and his brother’s three children) could be considered eligible for a Head of State visa is unclear.

Yet, for now, the duke is legally entitled to privacy related to his visa, after the judge’s decision on Monday. 

“Like any foreign national, the Duke has a legitimate privacy interest in his immigration status,” the judge noted, adding that although his status as a public figure somewhat diminishes his privacy interests, it doesn’t fully do so. “And the duke’s public statements about his travel and drug use did not disclose, therefore did not eliminate his interest in keeping private, specific information regarding his immigration status, applications,or other materials.” 

Heritage has argued that this case is “bigger than one person” but is rather about “whether the U.S. government is following the law.”

“Most Americans dislike the idea of celebrities being treated differently from anyone else, and Harry’s fame and profile makes this case the ideal window into DHS conduct,” as the Heritage Foundation’s Nile Gardiner explained earlier this year. “If DHS granted Harry special treatment, the implications are obvious: it has likely granted such treatment in the past to others sufficiently famous or sufficiently politically aligned, and will likely continue to do so.”

The judge said that argument fails: “public disclosure of records about a single admission of a foreign national in the circumstances described above would provide the public, at best, limited information about the Department’s general policy in admitting aliens.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment. Heritage, however, tells the Sun that the case isn’t over yet.

“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,” the executive director of Heritage’s Oversight Project, Mike Howell, tells the Sun. “President Trump has already suggested that Prince Harry will be deported next year and the case for that just got a lot more compelling.”

He doubled down on Heritage’s argument that the public deserves an immigration system that applies the rules fairly to all immigrants, regardless of whether they are high-profile or not.

“It certainly appears that Harry was given special treatment, and now we know it for something so serious that it involves extensive redactions,” he says. “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.”

Netflix, however, may be done with Harry and Meghan. Puck reports that Netflix is not expected to renew the couple’s lucrative deal amid industry-wide cutbacks and concerns that the couple have already exhausted what makes them interesting to a streaming audience — trashing and feuding with their relatives.