Prince Harry’s Mention Of Illicit Drug Use Being Considered In Law Case

It is a tenet of privacy law that your immigration record is your business and nobody else’s. There may be exceptions to the rule, such as if the disclosure might reveal participation in ongoing criminal activity that present a danger to the state and therefore justified by public interest. However, there appear to be no such exceptions in the case involving Prince Harry. For those reasons, the recent Heritage Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) application to gain disclosure of Prince Harry’s immigration record appears to have been rightfully denied by agencies of the Department of Homeland Security.

The Heritage Foundation’s argument that Prince Harry has waived his right to privacy and therefore that the FOIA application should be granted is in the category of “a Hail Mary” in that it would open the door to anyone being able to file FOIA requests on the immigration records of others on a showing that somewhere publicly a targeted person, for example on social media, has admitted to using illicit drugs and could lead to an avalanche of such applications and endless litigation over whose rights take precedence. Nonetheless, it may be useful to review the rules related to immigration and former drug use for the sake of clarity in considering Prince Harry’s case.

It may appear strange to those unfamiliar with U.S. immigration law that the mere fact that the Duke of Sussex admitted to previously taking cocaine, marijunana, and magic mushrooms at different times in his earlier life could have been enough to support refusing his entry into the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. But it was.

That is because there are two ways one can be denied entry into the U.S. for criminality. The first is due to a conviction. That is pretty straight forward. But the other way, the one that Prince Harry could be caught up in, is when the applicant for entry admits to a border official the essential elements that make up the offence involved. In Prince Harry’s case for example, his admission of the use of illicit drugs, such as cocaine which is considered a “controlled substance violation,” could be the basis for exclusion.

However, a waiver may have been available to Prince Harry. Among the factors that can be considered to get a waiver of inadmissibility are: 1) The severity of the drug offense, including the type and quantity of drug involved. More serious drug offenses or repeated drug-related offenses can present additional challenges. 2) The length of time since the drug use occurred is a crucial factor. In general, a longer period of good behavior and rehabilitation can strengthen the case for a waiver. 3) Demonstrating rehabilitation and evidence of reformation is important. This can include completion of drug treatment programs, counseling, employment history, community involvement, and any other relevant evidence that supports a claim of overcoming substance abuse issues, and finally, 4) In some cases, a showing that the denial of admission or removal would cause significant hardship to a spouse, parent, or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

All these circumstances suggest that Prince Harry is likely not to face much trouble living in the United States since his admissions were of relatively minor use of drugs during an early period in his life. Even were he deemed inadmissible it is very likely he would have qualified for a waiver. Many see Prince Harry’s life in recent years as being exemplary given his marriage to Meghan in the face of hardships and his leadership in the community in such things as the Invictus Games. In short, those seeking to attack Prince Harry are likely barking up the wrong tree and probably should give him a break. An old adage about “casting the first stone” suitably comes to mind in this regard.