A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey on April 28, 2026, charging him with two counts: threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce [1]. The charges stem from a May 2025 Instagram post in which Comey depicted seashells arranged to spell "86 47," a phrase widely associated with calls to remove or harm the 47th president [2]. Comey surrendered to authorities on April 29 and made a brief initial appearance in federal court [4].
This marks the second federal indictment of Comey brought under the Trump administration. The first prosecution ended in November 2025, when a federal judge dismissed the case after ruling that the appointed prosecutor lacked lawful authority to serve in that role [2][3]. The current indictment is filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, with W. Ellis Boyle of that district's U.S. Attorney's Office among the identified prosecutors [1]. The case proceeds under the same broad statutory framework used in threat prosecutions, including 18 U.S.C. provisions covering threats against the president and interstate transmission of threatening communications [1].
Comey denied that the post constituted a threat, and his attorney stated publicly that the defense will contest the charges on First Amendment grounds [2][3]. The "86" formulation is colloquially ambiguous, a fact the defense is expected to place at the center of any motion to dismiss. A selective-prosecution challenge is also anticipated, given the administration's prior unsuccessful attempt to prosecute Comey and the broader pattern of DOJ actions targeting figures who clashed with President Trump during his first term [3]. FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche are among the senior officials operating within the institutional structure overseeing the prosecution [2].
The case now moves toward arraignment and pretrial motions in Raleigh. First Amendment litigation over threat statutes has grown more contested since the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Counterman v. Colorado, which imposed a subjective recklessness standard on true-threats prosecutions, and Comey's defense team is likely to invoke that standard aggressively [3]. A renewed motion challenging prosecutorial appointment authority, similar to the one that ended the first case, remains a plausible procedural avenue as well. The outcome will carry weight beyond this defendant, setting markers on how far threat statutes extend to politically charged symbolic speech.
Comments (0)