A federal judge hearing the case against ex-FBI chief James Comey for allegedly threatening the life of President Donald Trump says no “friend-of-the-court” briefs are being allowed.
According to a report at the News & Observer, U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan confirmed she would deny requests from outsiders to contribute to the arguments.
“Defendant and the government are ably represented by competent counsel,” Flanagan said, in an order filed in the federal Eastern District of North Carolina.
Such briefs are filed in those cases where outsiders have an interest in the outcome. Law professors, political activists, rights organizations and more all want to try to persuade the judge to their viewpoint and so submit briefs citing previous cases, precedents, their opinions on the law and more.
In fact, when the case originally came up against Comey, “groups that described themselves as former senior officials of the U.S. Justice Department, university professors and scholars, current and former members of Congress, and former federal judges and U.S. attorneys” submitted arguments, the report said.
That case later was dismissed and a new indictment in North Carolina was issued against Comey.
Comey now faces two felony charges in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Hey @Comey looks like you have no more friends to run cover for ya 🖕🤣
A federal judge in North Carolina has ruled that no amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs will be accepted in the case against former FBI Director James Comey.https://t.co/slUFFVAB8C
— 🇺🇲Salty Texan (@texan_maga) June 15, 2026
No Amicus Briefs in the NC Comey case. https://t.co/lgG8ga08a0
— Margo (@MargoinWNC) June 15, 2026
It stems from Comey’s comments on social media. On Instagram he posted an image of seashells arranged to read “86 47.” Eighty six is long understood to mean to get rid of, and Trump is the 47th president.
Prosecutors charge that’s a threat, while Comey said that was not his intention and he removed the post after learning others perceived it that way.
Experts said the judge may have a simple and very practical reason for the order.
Scott Holmes, a law professor, said it could be simply the judge does not want her desk cluttered with paperwork.
“I can imagine that the court is worried about the floodgates opening, and everybody who wants to weigh in on this does,” he told the publication.
The trial is scheduled for the fall.
