It’s in his personal capacity that Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to revive his conspiracy lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others. Still, he says in a court filing, the high court must intervene on his behalf “to protect the Presidency.”The suit stems from his complaint that, ahead of the 2016 election, Clinton conspired to “weave a false narrative” that his campaign colluded with Russia. Trump argues that he put off bringing the civil case during his first term due to his presidential responsibilities at the time.

In a petition to the Supreme Court this month, his lawyers ask the justices to take his appeal to decide whether that’s a good enough reason to excuse “a President” from missing a filing deadline. They also want the justices to say that courts can’t impose monetary sanctions on “the President” and his lawyers for pressing such a delay claim.

The lower courts have rejected Trump’s arguments. A conservative appeals court upheld a district judge’s ruling that dismissed his suit and imposed nearly $1 million in sanctions against him, Alina Habba and her law firm. The appellate panel noted that many of his and Habba’s legal claims “were indeed frivolous.”The panel also cited the Supreme Court’s 1997 ruling in Clinton v. Jones that said Clinton couldn’t avoid judicial process in civil litigation while he was in office. “If a president can be haled into court, he cannot be excused from suing to enforce his rights,” the panel reasoned.

In his Supreme Court petition, Trump’s lawyers maintain that there is an important distinction between suing and being sued. They said the Clinton v. Jones precedent “permitted another citizen’s suit against the President while requiring respect for the Presidency; it did not require him to pursue his own claims while in office or lose them.”They also cited the Supreme Court’s 2024 criminal immunity ruling in Trump’s favor to argue that courts can’t make presidents decide whether to initiate personal litigation while in office. His lawyers are pressing that position as the president pursues an array of personal litigation, including multiple defamation claims.

Hillary Clinton and her civil co-defendants waived their right to respond to Trump’s petition. The court can request a response if one or more justices think it is warranted. If no response is requested, then that all but guarantees the court will decline to review the petition. Whether the court requests a response or not, it takes four justices to grant review.

The Clinton case is not Trump’s only pending bid to persuade the justices to revive personal litigation that he has lost in lower courts, nor is it the only one to invoke the presidency in doing so.

Although the court has already rejected one of his two petitions seeking to reverse his defamation losses against the writer E. Jean Carroll, his second petition is awaiting a response from Carroll before the justices decide whether to grant or likewise deny that one. There, too, his lawyers cite the criminal immunity ruling in seeking to overturn the $83.3 million judgment that Carroll won for statements Trump made during his first term.

The president is also pressing a defamation appeal against CNN over the network’s use of the phrase “big lie” regarding his 2020 election claims. That petition is awaiting a response from CNN, which the court requested after the network waived its right to respond.

We could learn later this year whether the court is interested in reviewing any or all of these cases. The court adds cases to its docket on a rolling basis and is not on a deadline to grant or deny review.