Legal representatives for James Comey petitioned a federal judge to throw out the prosecution centered on seashells involving the former FBI director. Their filing contends that “dictionaries, context, precedent, and common sense” dismantle the Trump administration’s assertion that a photograph uploaded to Instagram could realistically be viewed as a genuine threat against President Donald Trump.
A grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned an indictment against the former director in April. Prosecutors maintained that a digital image shared online, depicting seashells arranged to form the numbers “86 47,” served as a threat targeting the president. This legal action originates from a 2025 social media entry showing a specific arrangement of shells on a North Carolina shoreline.
As Trump holds the 47th presidency, he stated he viewed the seashell photograph as an indication of an intent to kill him. While “86” is commonly recognized as restaurant slang for removing an item, Comey’s legal team asserted in a Monday filing that no rational individual considering the context would interpret the phrase as an incitement to violence.
Matthew Petracca, a federal prosecutor and ex-Republican official who initiated the proceedings, has since recused himself from the matter. The Justice Department faces a deadline of Aug. 18 to answer Comey’s requests to dismiss the charges. Should the case withstand these legal hurdles, a trial is scheduled for October.
His counsel argued that “Forcing Mr. Comey to stand trial for a statement opposing the President — even if he is ultimately acquitted — would itself be an unconstitutional punishment of free speech”. They further noted that “The Supreme Court has rejected threats prosecutions based on speech far more directly threatening than Mr. Comey’s seashells post here”.
This prosecution feels like a direct attack on the right to speak freely, even when you disagree with the leader. The phrase, which has historically signified “getting rid of” or “ejecting,” has appeared on countless online merchandise items and is frequently seen at demonstrations.
Attorneys for Comey stated that the Instagram image displaying seashells forming “8647” did not constitute a “true threat”. They maintained that the photograph taken of the shells on a North Carolina beach constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
“No reasonable observer would understand the phrase ’86 47′ to connote violence at all — let alone to threaten that Mr. Comey personally would commit violence against the President,” the motion says. Comey remains a prominent critic of Trump, who removed him from his role as FBI director in May 2017.
He is currently facing two counts of threatening the president. This federal proceeding represents the second indictment of the former FBI director during Trump’s second term. A prior case in Virginia alleging Comey lied to Congress was dropped last November.
Comey has denied any misconduct regarding the incident. He subsequently removed the post after the numbers generated controversy, which led to an investigation by the Secret Service.
The government has until mid-August to submit its response to these dismissal motions. The judge must determine whether political hyperbole qualifies as a criminal threat under existing law. The outcome will soon reveal whether the courts safeguard speech or permit the government to silence critics.
