A federal judge is considering next steps in a slow-moving court case over whether to release documents that could spell legal trouble for Prince Harry,

with an influential conservative think tank seeking to reveal if he lied on his immigration paperwork about past drug use or received special treatment to enter the country.

The case before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols centers on the circumstances under which Harry — the Duke of Sussex and the son of King Charles III — entered the United States when he and his wife Meghan Markle moved to Southern California in 2020.

The Heritage Foundation sued after the Department of Homeland Security largely rejected its Freedom of Information Act request to release Harry’s records. Harry is not a party in the lawsuit.

“We believe the American people have a right to know whether Prince Harry was truthful on his application,” said Nile Gardiner, head of the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

Heritage has argued there is “intense public interest” in whether Harry received special treatment during the application process, particularly after his 2023 memoir “Spare” revealed past drug use.

Harry says in “Spare” that he took cocaine several times starting around age 17, in order “to feel. To be different.” He also acknowledged using cannabis and psychedelic mushrooms.

The U.S. routinely asks about drug use on its visa applications, and it has been linked to travel headaches for celebrities, including chef Nigella Lawson, singer Amy Winehouse and model Kate Moss. Acknowledgment of past drug use doesn’t necessarily bar people from entering or staying in the country, but answering untruthfully can have serious consequences.

“If he lied, that gets you deported,” Heritage’s attorney Samuel Dewey told reporters after the hearing. “People are routinely deported for lying on immigration forms.”

Dewey said it’s also possible that Harry was truthful about his prior drug use on his application, and received either an internal DHS waiver or some sort of diplomatic visa from the State Department. Both options are legal but would leave the government and Harry open to accusations of special treatment.

Wednesday’s hearing before Judge Nichols focused largely on how to handle a trio of sworn statements from DHS officials on why the agency was fighting the records request. Those statements have not been seen by the Heritage legal team, and Nichols is considering whether to release part or all of those declarations to the Heritage Foundation. The judge — who has been shown some, but not all, of Harry’s immigration records — said he’s also considering whether to request more records from the government and whether to call in an outside expert as a consultant.

Nichols said he’s seeking to strike a balance between revealing too much information in the DHS statements and redacting them to the point of meaninglessness.

“There’s a point where redactions would leave just a name or a date,” he said.

Gardiner said he was also appealing to President Donald Trump — who made immigration security a centerpiece of his campaign — to end the case by simply ordering the release of Harry’s paperwork.