In two cases fraught with political overtones, Chief Justice Roberts Jr.'s opinions in the Trump financial records cases did not achieve unanimity across an ideologically divided bench, but his effort came very close and protected, as he has tried in several cases this term, the appearance of an independent U.S. Supreme Court.

The chief justice's opinions were, in a sense, classic Roberts opinions, where he rejects extreme positions, applies a middle ground and leaves the door ajar for losing parties to make new arguments. And in doing so, he alone or with other conservative colleagues forms a cross-ideological majority.

In both Trump-related cases Thursday, Roberts led a 7-2 majority, with Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joining the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented in both cases.

Roberts' approach in the Trump-related cases was similar to his approach in this term's decision involving the Trump administration's plan to end the deferred deportation policy for so-called Dreamers, in the term's abortion clinic case, June Medical Services v. Russo, and in last term's case rejecting a citizenship question on the 2020 census. He and Gorsuch also joined with the court's liberal wing in ruling last month that Title VII barred discrimination on a basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the case Trump v. Mazars, where three House congressional committees sought President Donald Trump's financial records from his accounting firm and two banks, Roberts rejected tests for complying with those subpoenas that were proposed by the president's lawyers, the U.S. solicitor general and the U.S. House of Representatives general counsel.

The standard urged by the president and solicitor general would have required the House committees to "show that the requested information satisfies a 'demonstrated, specific need,' and is 'demonstrably critical' to a legislative purpose."

Those standards, Roberts said, were applied to information protected by executive privilege. He refused to "transplant" them to nonprivileged, private information.

"The standards proposed by the President and the Solicitor General—if applied outside the context of privileged information—would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities, giving short shrift to its important interests in conducting inquiries to obtain information needed to legislate effectively," Roberts wrote.

But he wasn't willing to accept the House's approach either. The House argued the subpoenas should be upheld because they relate to "a legitimate legislative purpose" or "concern a subject on which legislation could be had."

In rejecting that approach, Roberts wrote: "Far from accounting for separation of powers concerns, the House's approach aggravates them by leaving essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President's personal records. Any personal paper possessed by a President could potentially 'relate' to a conceivable subject of legislation, for Congress has broad legislative powers that touch a vast number of subjects."

In the end, Roberts wrote, a "balanced approach is necessary," and he provided four factors that courts should consider on remand.

The only justices refusing to join the majority were Thomas and Alito, who dissented in separate opinions.

Thomas, who would have reversed in full, wrote the power to subpoena private, nonofficial documents is not a necessary implication of Congress' legislative powers. "If Congress wishes to obtain these documents, it should proceed through the impeachment power," Thomas said.

Alito said the factors on remand that Roberts proposed were not adequate. He would have required a much more detailed showing by the House committees of the need for the information.

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. testifying in 2019. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM

In the case Trump v. Vance, involving a state grand jury subpoena for Trump's tax records, Roberts again rejected the standards proposed by Trump's lawyers and the solicitor general. A president has no absolute immunity from a state criminal subpoena, he wrote, and there is no requirement of a "heightened standard of need" for the issuance of such a subpoena.

"Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding," Roberts wrote. "We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need."

But he also wrote that Trump was not without recourse in the face of a subpoena. The president could argue that compliance would impede his constitutional duties or he could raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges to it, according to Roberts.

Thomas, who dissented, agreed a president has no absolute immunity from a grand jury subpoena. But he wrote the majority should have vacated and remanded the case to the district court to decide if "the President is unable to comply because of his official duties, then he is entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief."

Responding to Thomas, Roberts, in a footnote, wrote: "The daylight between our opinion and Justice Thomas's 'dissent' is not as great as that label might suggest. We agree that Presidents are neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas nor insulated by a heightened need standard. We agree that Presidents may challenge specific subpoenas as impeding their Article II functions. And, although we affirm while Justice Thomas would vacate, we agree that this case will be remanded to the District Court."

Alito, also dissenting, said he would apply a heightened standard of need for the subpoena. He wrote "the point is that we should not treat this subpoena like an ordinary grand jury subpoena and should not relegate a President to the meager defenses that are available when an ordinary grand jury subpoena is challenged."

In the end, there was no clear and unambiguous winner in either of the cases, both of which will be continued to be litigated. But perhaps, as Roberts may have intended with his carefully balanced compromise, the victor was the Supreme Court.