Judge Moves James Comey's Arraignment in '86 47' Seashell Case to January 2027 and Sets No New Trial Date
U.S. District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan granted Comey's unopposed request to push back his Sept. 30 arraignment in New Bern, North Carolina, while his motions to dismiss the threat charges are still pending.
A Delay Nobody Fought
James Comey's arraignment on federal threat charges was supposed to happen this Tuesday, Sept. 30, in a courthouse in New Bern, North Carolina. It isn't happening. On Friday, Sept. 25, U.S. District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan pushed it back to January 2027 and set no new trial date[1][2][4]. That last part matters, because several headlines this week said the trial itself got moved to 2027. It didn't. There is no trial date right now. There is only a later arraignment, which is the hearing where charges get read out loud and Comey enters a plea[2][3].
Here's the detail that got buried under all those headlines: the Justice Department did not fight the delay[2]. Prosecutors said they'd have been ready to go on the original schedule. They agreed to push it back anyway. When both sides in a case this politically loaded want the same thing, that's usually a sign the fight isn't really about the calendar.
What the Seashells Actually Say
The case traces back to a single Instagram post from May 15, 2025. It showed seashells arranged on a beach to spell out "86 47." Comey deleted it, but not before it drew attention[2][5]. A federal grand jury indicted him in April 2026 on two counts: threatening the president under 18 U.S.C. § 871, and sending a threat across state lines under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Each count carries up to 10 years in prison[5][15].
The number "47" is straightforward — it's Trump's presidential number, since he's the 47th president. The dispute is over "86." Prosecutors say it means "get rid of," and that a reasonable person who knew the context would read the combined post as a serious threat to harm the president[5][15]. That "reasonable person" standard is the legal test for what courts call a "true threat" — one of the narrow categories of speech the First Amendment doesn't protect. Comey's defense doesn't dispute what "86" can mean. They argue it's also common slang for removing someone from a job or from power, and that read that way, the post is political commentary about wanting Trump out of office — speech that gets the law's strongest protection[9][10]. U.S. Attorney Ellis Boyle put the government's position simply: "no one is above the law"[5].
Two Ways to Read the Same Grand Jury
Comey's lawyers filed motions in late July asking Judge Flanagan to throw the case out entirely, on two separate grounds. The first is the true-threat argument above. The second is that the prosecution itself is "vindictive and selective" — a legal claim that the government is going after him not because of what he posted, but to punish him for years of criticizing Trump[1][3][9].
That second claim faces a high bar. Courts generally require proof that the specific prosecutors who brought the charges acted out of personal animus, not just that the broader political climate looks hostile. That's exactly what the Justice Department's response leans on: prosecutors wrote that Comey "does not allege (let alone show) that the prosecutorial decisionmakers in this case had improper motives," and that he's only speculating they were pushed by other people who did[3]. Comey's team points instead to the pattern around the case — this is the second time he's been indicted under this administration, and CNBC and others reported that White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair in a 2025 interview that people "could think it does look vindictive" and that she couldn't say why they shouldn't[13][14][15]. Neither side disputes what was said. They disagree about what it proves.
Judge Flanagan hasn't ruled on either dismissal motion. The delay gives her room to do that before anyone enters a plea or a jury gets seated[2][3].
Why Delay Suits Everyone Right Now
It's worth asking why a case this contentious produced a scheduling request nobody opposed. The answer is that both sides have more to lose from rushing than from waiting. If Flanagan grants dismissal, the case ends before a jury ever hears it. If she denies it, that ruling becomes the thing likely to get appealed, win or lose at trial. Either way, holding a trial before she rules risks doing the work twice[2][3].
That shared incentive helps explain the government's decision not to oppose the delay. It also complicates two of the loudest read of this week's order. Raw Story's headline said the "true threat" challenge is "ripe for decision" and framed that as a signal dismissal is coming[11]. The order doesn't say which way Flanagan is leaning — only that the motions are fully briefed and waiting on her.
Nothing Changed Except the Calendar
Strip away the framing, and here's what's actually true as of this week: Comey is still under indictment on two felony counts. He still hasn't entered a plea. His next scheduled court date is the January 2027 arraignment, and there is no trial date attached to it[2][4]. The dismissal motions filed in July are fully argued and sitting on Flanagan's desk[3][9][11]. His legal exposure — up to 10 years per count if convicted — hasn't shifted at all[5].
Coverage split along familiar lines in how it framed that non-change. Fox News called it a "Trump threat case" and led with a teaser about Comey's "fate"[2]. NBC News put Comey's claim of Trump's "animus" in its opening lines and headlined "delayed until early 2027," which overstates what got moved[3]. The Center Square led with the fact that this is the third postponement, without noting up front that prosecutors agreed to it[6]. MS NOW's headline was the more measured of the bunch, correctly naming the arraignment rather than the trial as the thing being pushed back[12]. What most outlets across the spectrum shared, oddly, was the same overstatement — reporting a "2027 trial" that the judge never actually scheduled[3][18].
What Comes Next
The next real news in this case won't be a date on a calendar. It'll be Flanagan's ruling on whether "86 47" counts as a true threat or protected speech, and whether the prosecution itself should be thrown out as vindictive. Until she rules, the January arraignment is the only fixed point ahead — and even that could move again if her decision reshapes what happens next.
Summary
A federal judge in North Carolina has again delayed the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey. On Friday, Sept. 25, U.S. District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan moved his arraignment from Sept. 30 to January 2027[1][2]. An arraignment is the hearing where charges are formally read and the defendant enters a plea. The judge did not set a new trial date. The trial had been scheduled for Oct. 21[2][3]. Comey's lawyers had asked for a February 2027 trial term[1]. The government did not oppose the delay. Prosecutors said they would have been ready to go on the original schedule[2]. By one count, this is the third time the arraignment has been postponed[6].
A grand jury indicted Comey in April 2026 on two counts. One is threatening the president. The other is sending a threat across state lines[5]. The charges rest on a May 15, 2025, Instagram photo of seashells arranged to read '86 47'[5]. Prosecutors say '86' means getting rid of someone and '47' means Trump, the 47th president. They say a reasonable reader would take the post as a serious threat[5][15]. Comey deleted the post. He says he did not know '86' could be read as a call for violence[2].
The real dispute is whether this case should exist at all. In motions filed in late July, Comey argues the post was protected political speech, not a 'true threat.' He also argues the case is 'vindictive and selective' punishment for his criticism of Trump[3][9][10]. The Justice Department answers that Comey offers no evidence the prosecutors on the case had improper motives[3]. Judge Flanagan has not ruled on those motions. The delay gives her time to do so before any plea or trial[2][3].
The Event
On Friday, Sept. 25, 2026, U.S. District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan of the Eastern District of North Carolina granted James Comey's motion to move his New Bern arraignment from Sept. 30 to January 2027[1][2][4]. She declined to set a new trial date while she considers pending motions. The trial had been set for Oct. 21[2][3]. According to the order, the government did not oppose the request[2].
Undisputed Facts
- A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina indicted Comey in April 2026. The two counts are under 18 U.S.C. § 871 (threats against the president) and 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (interstate transmission of a threat)[5][15].
- The charges concern a May 15, 2025, Instagram post showing seashells arranged as '86 47.' Comey later deleted the post[2][5].
- Each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, according to the Justice Department[5].
- Comey's lawyers filed motions in late July 2026. They seek dismissal on the grounds that the post was not a 'true threat' and that the prosecution is 'vindictive and selective'[3][9].
- Judge Flanagan had not ruled on the dismissal motions when she granted the delay[2][3].
- Comey's arraignment had been set for Sept. 30 and his jury trial for Oct. 21. His lawyers asked for a January 2027 arraignment and a February 2027 trial term[1][19].
- The Justice Department did not oppose the delay but said it was ready to proceed on the original schedule[2].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- The 'true threat' line
- Threats are one of the few kinds of speech the First Amendment does not protect. The whole case turns on which side of that line '86 47' falls. The indictment uses an objective test. Would a reasonable person who knew the context read the post as a serious expression of intent to harm the president[5]? Prosecutors say yes, because '86' means 'get rid of' and '47' names Trump[15]. The defense says the same slang is widely used to mean removing someone from office or power. On that reading, the post is political commentary, which gets the strongest protection[9][10]. This is why both sides fight over what '86' means. Prosecutors need the violent reading to be the reasonable one. The defense only needs to show a reasonable reader would not take it as a real threat. The defense also says prosecutors tried and failed to tie '86' to criminal activity[8].
- The vindictive-prosecution bar
- A defendant can get charges thrown out by proving they are being prosecuted to punish legally protected conduct, such as criticizing the government. The bar is high. Courts usually want proof that the people who actually brought the charges acted out of animus. That is why prosecutors stress that Comey has not shown 'the prosecutorial decisionmakers in this case had improper motives'[3]. The defense points to the wider pattern instead. This is the second indictment of Comey under this administration[13][14]. And CNBC reported that White House chief of staff Susie Wiles acknowledged 'retribution' in a 2025 interview[15]. Each side cares about the standard for the same reason: whoever sets the level of proof required largely decides the outcome.
- Sequencing
- Both sides have reasons to want the dismissal motions decided first. A dismissal ends the case without a trial. A denial sets up possible appeals. Neither side gains from an arraignment and trial going ahead while those questions are open. That helps explain why the government did not oppose the delay[2][3].
Material realityComey is under federal indictment on two felony counts, each carrying up to 10 years[5]. He has entered no plea. The next fixed court date is a January 2027 arraignment in New Bern. There is no trial date[2][4]. The motions to dismiss, filed in late July, are fully argued and waiting on Judge Flanagan's decision[3][9][11]. Whatever headlines say, nothing about Comey's legal exposure changed on Sept. 25. Only the calendar moved.
Narrative as a weaponBoth camps are working on how readers see the case more than on the facts of the delay. The defense and left-leaning outlets present the case as one chapter in a Trump retribution campaign. They lead with 'animus' and 'vindictive,' and they read the judge's language as hinting at dismissal[3][11][14]. The Justice Department and right-leaning outlets present it as a routine threat case, with the delay as just another postponement. They lead with 'threat' and 'no one is above the law'[2][5][6]. Several outlets across the spectrum headlined a '2027 trial' that the judge did not schedule, which makes the order sound more definite than it was[3][18]. The detail most coverage buried is that the government agreed to the delay. That fact undercuts any claim that the delay is either a defense win or stalling.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir core argument is the First Amendment. '86' is common slang for 'get rid of' or 'remove.' They say a message about removing a president from office is political speech, not a threat[10][9]. Their second argument is vindictive prosecution. They say this is the second time Trump's Justice Department has indicted Comey after years of public attacks by the president. In their words, the case is 'not based on a good-faith application of the law to the facts' and is part of a campaign to punish protected speech[1][13][14]. They also say prosecutors held back evidence of their failed attempts to tie '86' to criminal activity[8]. On the delay itself, they say the dismissal motions took so much work that they need more time[1].
WhyGet the case dismissed before trial on free-speech or vindictiveness grounds. Short of that, get the ruling on the motions before entering a plea or preparing for a jury[1][3].
Impact on themComey remains under indictment and faces up to 10 years per count if convicted[5]. The delay keeps the charges over him longer. But it also keeps him from being tried before the judge rules on whether the case can go forward at all[2].
Frames it asProsecutors say this is an ordinary threat case, handled the same way as any other. U.S. Attorney Ellis Boyle said his office 'regularly pursues threat cases including those against public officials.' He noted that a grand jury found probable cause[5]. The indictment says a reasonable person who knew the context would read '86 47' as a serious expression of intent to harm the president[5]. That tracks the legal test for a 'true threat.' On the vindictiveness claim, prosecutors wrote that 'Comey does not allege (let alone show) that the prosecutorial decisionmakers in this case had improper motives. Instead, he speculates that they were induced by others with improper motives'[3].
WhyKeep the indictment alive past the dismissal motions. Show that threats against a sitting president are prosecuted no matter who the speaker is[5][3].
Impact on themNot opposing the delay lets the department avoid looking like it is rushing a politically charged case. But the delay also postpones any jury test of its theory[2].
Frames it asTrump allies described the post as a threat when it appeared in May 2025[15]. Their view is that a former FBI director, of all people, should know how a coded message about '47' would land in a period of violent threats against Trump. They argue that dismissing the case because of who the speaker is would itself put Comey above the law[5][15].
WhyHold Comey to account for a post they read as dangerous. Push back on the idea that the case is personal retribution[15][16].
Impact on themThe case adds to the long public feud between Trump and Comey. Critics cite it, along with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles' reported 2025 remark to Vanity Fair that Trump has engaged in 'retribution,' as evidence of political motive[15][14].
Frames it asThe court's role is procedural. It sets dates and rules on motions. By granting a delay neither side opposed and declining to set a trial date, the judge put the order of events first: rule on the dismissal motions, then arraignment, then trial[2][3]. Raw Story reported that the order describes the 'true threat' challenge as 'ripe for decision.' Raw Story's framing suggests that means a ruling is near, but the judge has given no signal of which way she will rule[11].
WhySettle the threshold legal questions before a jury is called, in a case likely to be appealed either way[2][7].
Impact on themHer coming ruling on the 'true threat' and vindictiveness motions is the main decision point in the case[3][9].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.1
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS NOW | U.S. left | 2 | Judge again postpones arraignment for James Comey in '86 47' seashell case | A straight and accurate headline. It correctly says 'arraignment' rather than 'trial.' 'Again' notes the repeated delays without judging them. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right (John Locke Foundation) | 2 | Judge agrees to delay Comey arraignment to January | A flat procedural headline. It accurately describes the order as covering the arraignment, with a trial date still to come. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 3 | Comey learns fate of bid to delay trial over '86 47' seashell post at center of Trump threat case | The teaser 'learns fate' and the label 'Trump threat case' take the prosecution's framing as the case name. The body was accurate on the details other outlets blurred: no new trial date, and no government opposition. |
| NBC News | U.S. center-left | 3 | James Comey seashells case delayed until early 2027 | 'Seashells case' is a slightly diminishing label. The top of the story puts Comey's claim that the case is driven by 'Trump's animus' up front. The headline says 'delayed until early 2027' even though no trial date was set. |
| The Center Square | U.S. right; Franklin News Foundation | 3 | Comey's '86 47' arraignment postponed 3rd time; now scheduled for January | Leading with the count of postponements ('3rd time') suggests stalling. It does not note up front that the government agreed to the delay. |
| UPI | U.S. center (wire) | 3 | Judge delays Comey seashell trial until 2027 | Headlines a trial date the judge did not set. That is a simplification rather than a slant, but it overstates what the order did. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 4 | James Comey's lawyers say US government distorted details in seashell case (July 29 coverage of the dismissal motion) | Leads with the defense accusation, though it is clearly attributed. Al Jazeera did not cover the Sept. 25 delay in the searches run. |
| Raw Story | U.S. progressive | 5 | Judge punts James Comey trial to 2027 with 'true threat' challenge 'ripe for decision' | Picking the 'ripe for decision' quote for the headline points readers toward an expected dismissal that the order does not announce. 'Punts' is informal and treats a routine scheduling order as a dodge. |
References
- Judge grants James Comey delay in arraignment, trial to 2027 in '86 47' seashell case — WITN · Local NBC affiliate, Greenville, N.C.; commercial broadcaster
- Comey learns fate of bid to delay trial over '86 47' seashell post at center of Trump threat case — Fox News · U.S. right; Fox Corporation
- James Comey seashells case delayed until early 2027 — NBC News · U.S. mainstream, center-left; Comcast/NBCUniversal
- Judge agrees to delay Comey arraignment to January — Carolina Journal · Conservative/libertarian; published by the John Locke Foundation
- Federal Grand Jury Indicts Former FBI Director James Comey for Threats to Harm President Trump — U.S. Department of Justice · Primary source; the prosecuting agency (party to the case)
- Comey's '86 47' arraignment postponed 3rd time; now scheduled for January — The Center Square · U.S. right; Franklin News Foundation; syndicated to Just the News
- Possible Trial In Comey's '86 47' Case Delayed To 2027 — Law360 · Legal trade publication; LexisNexis/RELX
- James Comey's lawyers say US government distorted details in seashell case — Al Jazeera · Funded by the Qatari state
- Comey asks judge to dismiss Trump 'seashells' case citing lack of 'true threat' — CNBC · U.S. business news, center; Comcast/NBCUniversal
- Comey says seashells post was political speech, not a threat, as he presses judge to dismiss charges — PBS News · U.S. public broadcaster, center-left; public and foundation funding
- Judge punts James Comey trial to 2027 with 'true threat' challenge 'ripe for decision' — Raw Story · U.S. progressive digital outlet
- Judge again postpones arraignment for James Comey in '86 47' seashell case — MS NOW · U.S. left; formerly MSNBC, owned by Versant
- Exclusive: Former FBI Director James Comey indicted over alleged 'threat' against Trump — CNN · U.S. mainstream, center-left; Warner Bros. Discovery
- Comey's indictment marks a dramatic escalation in Trump's political retribution efforts — NPR · U.S. public radio, center-left; public and foundation funding
- James Comey charged with Trump threat in 8647 seashell post — CNBC · U.S. business news, center; Comcast/NBCUniversal
- DOJ Announces Comey Indictment (transcript) — Rev · Transcription service; primary-source transcript of DOJ announcement
- Comey's initial appearance May 11 in Greenville on federal indictment — Carolina Journal · Conservative/libertarian; published by the John Locke Foundation
- Judge delays Comey seashell trial until 2027 — UPI · U.S. wire service, center
- James Comey asks to delay New Bern arraignment, trial to 2027 in '86 47' seashell case — WITN · Local NBC affiliate, Greenville, N.C.; commercial broadcaster