A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina indicted former FBI Director James Comey on April 28, 2026, on two counts: making a threat against the president, and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce [1]. The charges stem from a May 2025 Instagram post in which Comey shared a photograph of seashells arranged on a beach to spell "86 47," a phrase widely understood as slang for eliminating or removing a person, here applied to the 47th president [2]. Comey surrendered to federal authorities and appeared in court the following day, April 29 [1].
The two statutory counts likely implicate 18 U.S.C. § 871, which criminalizes threats against the president, and 18 U.S.C. § 875, which covers interstate transmission of threats [1][3]. Comey's attorney indicated the defense will contest the charges on First Amendment grounds, arguing the post constitutes protected symbolic speech rather than a true threat [2]. The Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Counterman v. Colorado established that true-threat prosecutions require proof that the defendant was subjectively aware of the threatening nature of the communication, a standard the defense is expected to invoke [2][3].
This is the second federal indictment of Comey under the current Justice Department. A prior case brought against him was dismissed in November 2025 [2]. The sequence has drawn scrutiny from defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates, who argue the successive prosecutions reflect selective enforcement against a prominent critic of the administration. Comey was fired as FBI Director by President Trump in May 2017 and later published accounts of his tenure that were sharply critical of the president. His defense team includes Patrick Fitzgerald, a veteran federal prosecutor [3]. The government's case is expected to be handled in part by W. Ellis Boyle, a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of North Carolina [1].
The case is now in its early pretrial phase. The defense's anticipated First Amendment motion will require the court to assess whether a reasonable observer, or under Counterman, the defendant himself, would have understood the post as a genuine threat rather than political commentary [2][3]. The Eastern District of North Carolina will be the venue, with the next procedural steps likely including arraignment, scheduling orders, and motions practice over the coming months [1]. The outcome will carry significant implications for how federal courts draw the line between prosecutable threats and protected political expression directed at sitting officials.
Comments (0)