Former FBI Director James B. Comey asked a judge on July 27 to dismiss a federal indictment over a 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged on a beach, arguing the image constitutes protected political speech under the First Amendment rather than a criminal threat against President Donald Trump.
Comey’s legal team filed the motion in response to charges that he “knowingly and willfully” made a threat to “take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon” Trump by posting a photo of seashells in the numerical arrangement “86 47.” Prosecutors claim a reasonable recipient familiar with the circumstances would interpret the message as a threat, but Comey contends the post was deleted shortly after publication when he realized the misinterpretation.
The slogan “86” has long meant to “get rid of” or “eject” in restaurant and military contexts, and the number “47” refers to Trump as the 47th president. According to Comey’s attorneys, the phrase has been featured on thousands of items sold online and regularly displayed at anti-Trump protests, making it a form of political opposition rather than incitement to violence.
The First Amendment Defense and Legal Precedent
Comey’s motion argues that prosecutors cannot prove the post meets the legal standard for a “true threat.” The Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Watts v. United States established that while the First Amendment does not protect true threats, it does protect “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” In Watts, the Court overturned a conviction of an 18-year-old who said during an anti-war protest, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”—remarks the Court called “political hyperbole.”
Comey’s lawyers wrote in court papers that “even if ’86 47′ could implausibly be read to suggest violence, a reasonable observer would still understand Mr. Comey’s post as mere political hyperbole, not a true threat.” They argue the government “singles out Mr. Comey to prosecute one of the President’s most prominent critics for publishing another person’s statement of political opposition,” a move that “contravenes both the statutes at issue and the First Amendment.”
Legal experts widely expect the charges to be dismissed on First Amendment grounds. David Hudson, a professor at Belmont University College of Law, said Comey’s photo was “in bad taste” but “protected speech,” falling far short of being a true threat. “One of the most fundamental of all First Amendment principles is the ability of individuals to criticize government officials—even intemperately and harshly,” Hudson told Reuters in April.
Clay Calvert, a First Amendment scholar affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, noted that “seashells on a beach would be an odd context to convey a threat of violence.” Thomas Berry, a constitutional lawyer at the Cato Institute, described Comey as the “poster child” for a “frivolous prosecution” and said that while “he will never be convicted,” the legal process itself becomes “the punishment.”
Part of a Broader Pattern
This is the second criminal case brought against Comey during Trump’s second administration. A previous indictment in Virginia, filed in September 2025 and accusing Comey of lying to Congress, was dismissed in November 2025 after a federal judge concluded the interim prosecutor who charged him and New York Attorney General Letitia James was unlawfully appointed to the job. Judge Cameron Currie ruled that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan “had no lawful authority” to present the indictment.
Comey has long been a target of Trump’s public criticism. Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017 and has called him a “corrupt piece of garbage” and other pejorative names over the years. The seashells case is part of a broader Justice Department initiative targeting individuals the Trump administration views as political adversaries, according to legal experts and news reports.
Comey deleted the Instagram post shortly after it was published, stating: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.” He was interviewed by the Secret Service about the post in 2025 after Trump administration officials asserted he was advocating Trump’s assassination.
Sources
- PBS NewsHour / Associated Press — Comey’s motion to dismiss, his First Amendment argument, the meaning of “86 47,” his deletion of the post and explanation, and context on the previous dismissed indictment.
- Reuters — Legal expert analysis from David Hudson, Clay Calvert, and Thomas Berry; the Watts v. United States precedent and its application to Comey’s case; prosecutors’ claim about reasonable recipient interpretation; and the April 2026 charges.
- U.S. Department of Justice — The indictment details and charges against Comey.
- Court records (CourtListener) — The motion to dismiss filing date and court docket information.
