Former FBI Director James Comey will go on trial in October over a photo he posted on Instagram showing seashells arranged to form the numbers "8647," according to an order issued Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Louise Flanagan. The trial is scheduled for Oct. 21 at the federal courthouse in New Bern, North Carolina.
A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina indicted Comey in April on allegations that the seashell image constituted "a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States." The number combination references restaurant industry slang where "86" means an item is out or should be removed from a menu, which critics say undermines the government's interpretation.
The trial date had originally been set for July but was pushed back after Comey's legal team requested additional time last week. Defense attorneys indicated that some arguments "may require extensive briefing." If the case survives expected motions to dismiss, Comey would appear for arraignment on Sept. 30.
What the Left Is Saying
Civil liberties advocates and former Justice Department officials have raised concerns about what they characterize as selective prosecution of Trump critics. Comey's defense team has indicated plans to file motions to dismiss based in part on arguments that the case represents vindictive and selective prosecution targeting a high-profile critic of the administration.
Senate Judiciary Committee members from the Democratic caucus have called for oversight hearings examining whether cases against former government officials who publicly criticized President Donald Trump reflect legitimate law enforcement concerns or political retaliation. A spokesperson for one senator noted that prosecutors previously dropped similar cases brought before federal grand juries in other jurisdictions, suggesting inconsistency in how such matters are pursued.
Defense attorneys have pointed to the restaurant industry's characterization of "86" as standard terminology with no threatening connotation. The National Restaurant Association has not issued a formal statement on the case but industry publications have described the term as everyday workplace language used when menu items become unavailable.
What the Right Is Saying
Justice Department officials have defended the prosecution, arguing that any credible indication of intent to harm the president warrants full investigation regardless of how such communication is framed. A DOJ spokesperson stated that prosecutors acted appropriately based on evidence presented to a federal grand jury in North Carolina.
Administration allies have noted that Comey, as former FBI director, occupies a unique position requiring heightened scrutiny of any communications touching on presidential safety. Conservative legal commentators have argued that courts should not dismiss charges before review of the full evidentiary record, particularly given the classified context surrounding some aspects of Comey's tenure.
Republican members of Congress have largely refrained from public commentary on the specific case while expressing general support for robust enforcement of laws protecting executive branch officials. One senator said through a spokesperson that "no one is above the law" but declined to comment on the merits before trial.
What the Numbers Show
The Oct. 21 trial date follows a procedural history in which Comey's previous federal case in the Eastern District of Virginia was dismissed after a judge found that Trump appointee Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed as interim U.S. attorney when she participated in proceedings against Comey last year, according to court records.
Federal grand juries have returned mixed results for Trump administration prosecutions this year. A separate panel rejected attempts to indict six Democratic lawmakers over social media video content, representing a notable setback for prosecutors pursuing cases connected to the president's political opponents, according to courthouse officials who track such proceedings.
Defense motions are due July 28, with government responses due Aug. 18 and defense replies due Sept. 1, per Judge Flanagan's scheduling order. The arraignment would occur one month before trial if the case proceeds past pretrial challenges.
The Bottom Line
The October trial will test whether courts view Comey's seashell arrangement as criminal expression or protected speech under the First Amendment. Defense motions challenging selective prosecution could be dispositive, particularly given documented inconsistencies in how similar communications have been handled across different federal jurisdictions.
If Judge Flanagan denies dismissal motions, the case proceeds to trial where jurors would need to interpret whether a social media photo of seashells constitutes a genuine threat or innocent imagery subject to common industry terminology. The outcome may establish precedent for how prosecutors handle symbolic speech cases involving public officials and their critics.