In a striking legal showdown reminiscent of a sports upset, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss delivered a significant blow to the Department of Justice's prosecution strategy against former FBI Director James Comey. The case, stemming from Comey's cryptic beach photo of seashells arranged to read "86 47," was dealt a preemptive strike in a separate but related court ruling.

Yesterday, in the District of Columbia, the scenario unfolded not on a gridiron but in a federal courtroom, where Judge Moss critically evaluated the DOJ’s interpretation of "86 47" during the proceedings of *Accountability NOW USA v. National Park Service*. This case involved a progressive protest group and their impeachment demonstration, which featured the same contentious phrase.

The DOJ, under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, had previously charged Comey with threatening the president based on the seashell arrangement. Blanche's office argued that "86 47" was a veiled incitement of violence against the President. However, their argument appeared to unravel as Judge Moss cited the First Amendment and emphasized the non-violent context of the phrase displayed on a flag during a lawful protest.

Judge Moss referred to the Merriam-Webster definition of "86" — to reject or refuse service — noting that while some might interpret it as a call to violence, such an interpretation was not widely recognized or historically substantiated. The judge ruled that the phrase, particularly in the context of a peaceful protest, could not reasonably be seen as conveying a threat of violence.

This ruling casts doubt on the DOJ’s aggressive stance in Comey’s upcoming trial, suggesting that their interpretation of "86 47" might not hold up under judicial scrutiny. The decision, while not directly impacting Comey's case in the Eastern District of North Carolina, signals potential challenges ahead for the DOJ’s legal theory.

The full implications of this ruling are yet to unfold, but it is clear that the DOJ’s strategy has suffered a significant setback, akin to being outplayed in a high-stakes game. As the Comey trial approaches, all eyes will be on how this preliminary legal skirmish influences the main event.

For a deeper dive into the ruling and its ramifications, the full decision can be accessed and reviewed [here](https://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2026/06/show_public_doc.pdf).

This development marks yet another twist in the ongoing legal battles involving high-profile political figures and adds another layer of complexity to the interpretation of free speech in politically charged contexts.