The Trump-appointed judge who could release Prince Harry's US immigration files: How 'unpredictable' conservative Carl Nichols is demanding to see DHS papers - after ex-President said he 'wouldn't protect' the Duke in visa battle

The judge who will decide if Prince Harry's immigration documents will be made public is a Trump-appointed and 'unpredictable' jurist with connections to the conservative Federalist Society but who has also jailed January 6th Capitol rioters. 

On Thursday, Judge Carl Nichols told the Department of Homeland Security to hand over the records relating to Harry's immigration status. Nichols had asked the agency to give him declarations explaining the 'particular harm' that would arise from the disclosure of the application.

In the wake of the publication of Prince Harry's memoir Spare, right-wing group the Heritage Foundation sued the DHS for access to his files, after the royal admitted to drug use on multiple occasions in the book. 

The US routinely asks about drug use on its visa applications, and it has been linked to travel headaches for celebrities, including  Nigella Lawson, Amy Winehouse, and Kate Moss. But acknowledgement of past drug use doesn't necessarily bar people from entering or staying in the country. 

Last month, ex-President Donald Trump - who appointed Nichols in 2018 - said that he would not protect Harry if he were elected again in November. 

'I wouldn't protect him. He betrayed the Queen. That's unforgivable. He would be on his own if it was down to me,' Trump said.

District Court Judge Carl Nichols was appointed to the bench by Donald Trump in 2018 but since then has not always gone along with the ex-president 

Since June, the Duke's immigration status has been scrutinized after conservative group the Heritage Foundation sent a public-information request to the Department of Homeland Security for Harry's records

Last month, ex-President Donald Trump said that he would not protect Harry if he were elected again in November

Judge Nichols, a graduate of Dartmouth and the University of Chicago Law School, was appointed by Trump to the District Court for the District of Columbia in June 2018. He was formally appointed to the role four months later. 

Nichols lives in Bethesda, Maryland, with his wife, Argentinian national, Liese Nichols. In 2010, he spent time living in his wife's homeland. 

Prior to becoming a judge, Nichols was a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in DC and regularly appeared in federal court. 

He also clerked for conservative Justice Clarence Thomas and worked in the DOJ between 2005 and 2009, rising to the role of principal deputy associate attorney general. 

Despite worries about bias, Nichols has not always towed the Trump-party line. A 2022 Politico feature on the ex-president's judicial appointments referred to him as being 'unpredictable.'

In 2020, Nichols issued an injunction blocking the US Commerce Department from imposing restrictions on TikTok that would have effectively barred its use in the United States, an issue that Trump supported. 

Nichols said the Commerce Department 'likely overstepped' its legal authority in issuing the effective TikTok ban 'and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by failing to consider obvious alternatives.' 

In November 2021, Nichols sentenced the former chief executive of a tech company in suburban Chicago who lost his job after he threw a chair inside the US Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot was sentenced Friday to 30 days imprisonment.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols also ordered Bradley Rukstales, of Inverness, Illinois, to pay $500 in restitution.

Then, in March 2022, Nichols struck down a conspiracy charge against Garrett Miller in relation to his actions on January 6th. That ruling set a precedent that could be used in the defense of other accused rioters, reported The Washington Post.

In October 2022, he sentenced former Trump advisor and provocateur Steve Bannon to four months in prison and fined him $6,500 

Supporters of Donald Trump clash with police at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021

Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken 'some action with respect to a document, record or other object' in order to obstruct an official proceeding under the law. 

In October 2022, he sentenced former Trump advisor and provocateur Steve Bannon to four months in prison and fined him $6,500 over his defiance of subpoena from the House select committee in the relation to the January 6th riot. 

Nichols said Bannon had 'no remorse for his actions.' During the trial, he admonished the War Room podcast host's legal team for attempting to turn proceedings into a 'political circus.'

Also in 2022, Nichols' ruling in case involving the dismissal of a child-trafficking and forced labor lawsuit against Apple and Microsoft was questioned after it emerged that he had bonds in in both companies worth between $60,000 and $200,000, according to Forbes. 

According to Nichols' US Senate questionnaire, he is a member of the Federalist Society. He joined the group first in 2003, leaving in 2008, before rejoining in 2018. It's not clear if he still a member. 

The Federalist Society has no partisan affiliation and takes no position in election campaigns, but it is closely aligned with Republican priorities, including the drive to overturn Roe v Wade. 

The group got its start at elite law schools when Ronald Reagan was in the White House. It was conceived as a way to counter what its members saw as liberal domination of the nation's law school faculties. 

Donald Trump on last month declared Prince Harry will be 'on his own' if he wins a second term, calling the Duke's 2020 move to the US an 'unforgivable' betrayal of Queen Elizabeth II

Trump's comments, moreover, come as the prince's immigration status has come under question - as a conservative think tank argues he cannot have legally entered the country due to admitting to taking illegal drugs at the time, in his memoir, Spare

Since June, the Duke's immigration status has been scrutinized after conservative group the Heritage Foundation sent a public-information request to the Department of Homeland Security for Harry's records.

That came in the wake of the release of his memoir Spare in which he admitted to taking cocaine several times starting around age 17, in order 'to feel. To be different.' He also acknowledged using cannabis and psychedelic mushrooms.

The issue is now back in the news following Harry's February interview with Good Morning America where the issue of him seeking US citizenship was raised. 

'The American citizenship is a thought that has crossed my mind but certainly not something that's a high priority for me right now,' he said. 

Harry moved to Southern California with Meghan and their young family in 2020 after they left royal life and embarked on new projects.

The Heritage Foundation claims Harry could have lied about taking drugs in his immigration paperwork despite admitting doing them in his memoir and in the Netflix show.

If the Duke did not tell the truth on his entry forms then he could be removed from the US or barred by a border agent.

In an order filed to the court in Washington, Judge Nichols stated that the Freedom of Information law authorized him to review 'declarations and/or contested records in camera.'

Doing so would help him to determine whether any exemptions preventing the documents from being made public apply.

Such a review is appropriate when 'agency affidavits are insufficiently detailed to permit meaningful review of exemption claims….when the number of withheld documents is relatively small, and when the dispute turns on the contents of the withheld documents, and not the parties' interpretations of those documents', the order said.

Judge Nichols said: 'Having reviewed the parties' written submissions and heard oral argument on the motions, the court concludes that in camera review is necessary to determine whether the records in dispute come within the scope of the claimed exemptions'.

Judge Nichols gave DHS until March 21 to submit declarations that detail 'the records it is withholding and the particular harm that would arise from public disclosure of them', his order said.

The review will be conducted in camera, meaning it would be done by the judge in private. 

In its legal filing, DHS said that the records at issue are 'particularly sensitive' because they would 'reveal Harry's (immigration) status in the United States.'

DHS has claimed that Harry still has a right to privacy even though he is a celebrity.

Heritage has claimed in legal filings that Harry being so open about his private life means he has forfeited such a right.

During the hearing last month, lawyers for DHS said that Harry's claims about his drug use in 'Spare' may not have been true and may have been in there just to sell books.

'The book isn't sworn testimony or proof,' John Bardo told the court. 'Saying something in a book doesn't necessarily make it true.'