Whatever you think of Prince Harry—and I know he has both well-wishers and detractors—there are some things upon which we can all agree. He is a wealthy man from a remarkably privileged background boasting nearly universal fame.

I object to none of that and have nothing personally against him.

But at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C., America's most prominent conservative think-tank, our goal is to ensure the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) treat everyone—prince or ordinary citizen—equally when it comes to being allowed to legally enter the U.S.

Prince Harry entered America in March 2020 with no apparent problem and has settled with his wife Meghan and their two children in Montecito, California.

However, in his book Spare, published last year, he admitted extensively to elements of drug crimes both in the U.S. and elsewhere. He admitted using cocaine, cannabis and psychedelic mushrooms. He has since spoken about using the hallucinogenic drug ayahuasca.

What has this got to do with me or my organization, you might ask.

>>> WATCH: Securing Sovereign Borders in an Age of Mass Migration

The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, established by Baroness Thatcher in 2006, is part of the Heritage Foundation, which has about 500,000 members and has been the leading Washington think-tank calling for the robust enforcement of U.S. immigration laws and condemning the failure of the Biden administration to secure the U.S. borders.

When I worked for Baroness Thatcher as a foreign policy aide in London from 2000 to 2002, it was her firm conviction that both the U.S. and U.K. must defend and control their borders and apply the rule of law in protecting them.

That is why we are engaged in a court battle with DHS, the agency in charge of U.S. immigration, to release Prince Harry's visa application. Officials have resisted our Freedom of Information request, and the matter is now in the hands of a judge. I have no doubt my former boss would have backed our fight to determine if Harry received preferential treatment.

Agree or disagree, but America takes a firm stance against illegal drug use. Anyone applying to live and work in the U.S. has to answer the question: “Have you ever violated, or engaged in a conspiracy to violate, any law relating to controlled substances?”

Again, Harry has publicly admitted to extensive illegal drug use. What do we submit this means? That Harry seems to have received special treatment: the DHS looked the other way if the Prince answered truthfully, or it looked the other way if the Prince lied on his visa application. Either action would be wrong.

Truthfully recounting the drug use outlined in Spare would have rendered him inadmissible to enter the country—full stop—unless he entered on a visa that does not allow permanent residence in the U.S. and received a special waiver, which takes a long time.

But Harry decided to move to the U.S. and entered without apparent difficulty in under two weeks.

One would have expected that Harry's immigration application would have included the same detailed description of drug use as his book. Any omissions would be an extremely serious matter.

Heritage's expert witness made clear in court that if a hypothetical “normal” person were to lie on such a scale and publish a book—which some claim glorifies illegal drug use—they would face immediate and harsh action from DHS. They might well be deported.

>>> The BorderLine / This Week, We Look Inside Biden’s Bogus Illegal Immigrant “Visa” Program

A source close to Harry has said he was “truthful” on his application, and there is no evidence he provided false information. What matters is how DHS acted. Is DHS playing favorites?

The case is bigger than one person—it is 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. 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.

It is astonishing that U.S. officials are fighting to prevent the release of Harry's immigration records.

The judge is expected to release a written decision in our case soon. On Thursday, he ordered the DHS to hand over specific information before he decides whether to make the records public or not. He also asked the government to explain any “particular harm” that would arise from the documents' release.

For the sake of truth and transparency, I hope he agrees to let the public see Harry's immigration files for themselves. That is the fairest possible outcome.