Attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey are asking a federal court to toss out the indictment accusing him of threatening President Donald Trump’s life, arguing his Instagram post of seashells spelling “86 47” was nothing more than protected political speech.
Comey was indicted in April over the post, published in May 2025 and later deleted, which prosecutors say amounted to a threat against the president. In a filing Monday, Comey’s legal team called the case an assault on the First Amendment, insisting the numbers referenced a slogan that has circulated at protests and on merchandise nationwide, rather than any call for violence.
“Mr. Comey, an outspoken critic of President Trump, posted a photograph of seashells spelling out ’86 47,’ a well-known political slogan that expresses opposition to the President,” the filing said, adding that thousands of items bearing the phrase have been sold online and that it was a common sight at demonstrations in the months before his post.
The defense accused the Justice Department of singling out Comey “to prosecute one of the President’s most prominent critics for publishing another person’s statement of political opposition,” calling the effort an unconstitutional attempt to suppress speech.
Prosecutors, however, have pointed to the phrase’s widely understood meaning as coded language for killing the president, a reading that helped drive the grand jury’s decision to indict one of Trump’s most vocal law enforcement critics.
Comey has denied any intent to threaten Trump and is expected to plead not guilty at an arraignment scheduled for next month in North Carolina.
His attorneys argue that even a trial ending in acquittal would amount to unconstitutional punishment and could invite future prosecutions of the president’s perceived political opponents, noting that officials have warned they would pursue anyone who tries to “copycat” Comey’s post.
The filing also disclosed that after deleting the image, Comey reached out to his local police chief to flag the controversy and later agreed to sit for an interview with Secret Service agents, details his lawyers say undercut any claim that he intended a genuine threat. They argue prosecutors have not met the Supreme Court’s demanding standard for proving a “true threat,” which requires evidence Comey himself meant to incite violence.
Comey’s team also sought to draw a contrast with Trump’s own rhetoric, pointing to the president’s earlier description of lawmakers who urged troops to disobey unlawful orders as committing “treason” that was “punishable by death.” The comparison drew immediate skepticism from Trump allies, who note the president was addressing lawmakers accused of encouraging service members to defy the commander in chief, a markedly different scenario than a former top law enforcement official publicly signaling hostility toward a sitting president he has spent years attacking.
The case marks the latest chapter in the long-running feud between Trump and Comey, whom the president fired as FBI director in 2017 and has repeatedly accused of politicizing the bureau’s Russia investigation into his 2016 campaign.
