Prince Harry suffers fresh blow as new challenge launched in US visa battle

The organisation's lawyers wrote in the filing, seen by Newsweek: "[Heritage] submitted there was no proper method by which the Duke of Sussex could have been admitted."

The case had previously been dismissed in September by Judge Carl J. Nichols after he privately reviewed confidential Department of Homeland Security files.

The Heritage Foundation argues that the sealed nature of the judge's reasoning denied them the opportunity to challenge the DHS's private disclosures.

The Heritage Foundation's case centres on Prince Harry's past drug use disclosures during the US immigration process.

The think tank contends that if the prince was honest about his previous drug use, he should have been denied entry to America.

In his earlier ruling, Judge Nichols addressed Heritage's argument that Harry either disclosed his drug use and was "admitted inappropriately" or failed to disclose it entirely.

A recent Government filing responded to these claims, stating: "The evidence before the Court plainly sufficed to show that [Heritage's] speculation of impropriety was unfounded."

Heritage's lawyers have now clarified their position, asserting they were actually arguing that it would have been impossible for Harry to have been properly admitted to America through any means.

Heritage's challenge focuses heavily on the sealed nature of Judge Nichols' decision-making process.

The think tank argues that the confidential handling of DHS files prevented them from properly contesting the department's private disclosures to the judge.

Their lawyers maintain that if the Department of Homeland Security had "paroled" the Duke of Sussex into the country, it would be both "illogical and illegal."

The foundation's position marks a shift from earlier interpretations of their argument, which had focused on whether Harry had disclosed his drug use.

Instead, they now emphasise that their core contention is about the fundamental impossibility of any legitimate entry method being available to the prince.

This interpretation directly challenges the judge's previous understanding of their case, which had centred on the disclosure versus non-disclosure debate.

Legal experts have offered alternative perspectives on Prince Harry's US entry options.

Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told Newsweek that Harry might qualify for a waiver by proving his drug use is in remission.

"Someone is considered in remission after a year of sobriety. A waiver request requires a doctor to submit medical documentation," Rahmani explained.

UK immigration firm Chavin suggested another possibility, speculating that Harry may hold a diplomatic visa.

"Prince Harry is likely not subject to the standard security and background check measures because, we theorise, he is traveling on an A-1 Head of State visa," the firm stated.

However, Heritage might contest the appropriateness of a diplomatic visa for the prince.

These alternative explanations directly challenge Heritage's assertion that no proper admission method was possible.

The Heritage Foundation is now calling for full transparency in the case.

Their court filing demands that all secret documents and correspondence be made public.