The two rulings Thursday from the U.S. Supreme Court confronting the secrecy of President Donald Trump's financial records offered a defining road map for congressional oversight and fresh precedent declaring the president of the United States not beyond the reach of a state grand jury.

New York prosecutors can obtain Trump's personal financial records, as the president is not immune, but Trump has a new opportunity to make legal arguments challenging the merits of a grand jury subpoena.

On the federal side, a majority of justices embraced the broad power of congressional oversight, but the court said investigating committees didn't adequately assess separation of powers concerns in the effort to obtain the personal papers of a president.

The scope and substance of the rulings gave all the sides something to proclaim as victory. At the same time, Trump's financial records remain secret—and perhaps forever will.

Trump was the first president in modern history to refuse to release his tax returns, despite a pledge that he would give voters this information. Trump asserted various positions about why he would not release his tax returns.

Here's a look at what else Roberts, and other justices, said in the two cases.

Trump v. Mazars

>> Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. for the majority

Trump and DOJ go too far: "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. The President and the Solicitor General would apply the same exacting standards to all subpoenas for the President's information, without recognizing distinctions between privileged and nonprivileged information, between official and personal information, or between various legislative objectives. Such a categorical approach would represent a significant departure from the longstanding way of doing business between the branches, giving short shrift to Congress's important interests in conducting inquiries to obtain the information it needs to legislate effectively."

Congressional power is not unlimited: "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."

Are there other means? "Congress may not rely on the President's information if other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it needs in light of its particular legislative objective. The President's unique constitutional position means that Congress may not look to him as a 'case study' for general legislation."

Road map for the future: "First, courts should carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers," Roberts wrote. He added other elements, including: "Second, to narrow the scope of possible conflict between the branches, courts should insist on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress's legislative objective." And: "Third, courts should be attentive to the nature of the evidence offered by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose." And finally: "Fourth, courts should be careful to assess the burdens imposed on the President by a subpoena."

Justice Clarence Thomas (2015). Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ ALM

>> Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent:

No historical precedent: "Given that Congress has no exact precursor in England or colonial America, founding-era congressional practice is especially informative about the scope of implied legislative powers. Thus, it is highly probative that no founding-era Congress issued a subpoena for private, nonofficial documents."

Impeachment is the "proper path": "If the Committees wish to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the President and obtain documents from him, the Constitution provides Congress with a special mechanism for doing so: impeachment." He added later: "I express no view today on the boundaries of the power to demand documents in connection with impeachment proceedings. But the power of impeachment provides the House with authority to investigate and hold accountable Presidents who commit high crimes or misdemeanors. That is the proper path by which the Committees should pursue their demands."

Four-part test is "better than nothing": "Congress' legislative powers do not authorize it to engage in a nationwide inquisition with whatever resources it chooses to appropriate for itself. The majority's solution—a nonexhaustive four-factor test of uncertain origin—is better than nothing. But the power that Congress seeks to exercise here has even less basis in the Constitution than the majority supposes."

>> Justice Samuel Alito Jr. in dissent:

Be suspicious: "Legislative subpoenas for a President's personal documents are inherently suspicious. Such documents are seldom of any special value in considering potential legislation, and subpoenas for such documents can easily be used for improper non-legislative purposes. Accordingly, courts must be very sensitive to separation of powers issues when they are asked to approve the enforcement of such subpoenas."

Trump v. Vance

>> Roberts for the majority:

The president is not above the law: "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. 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."

Still, Trump has arguments: "The Executive can—as the district attorney concedes—argue that compliance with a particular subpoena would impede his constitutional duties."

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

>> Justice Brett Kavanaugh, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, concurring in the judgment:

What the lower courts should do: "In my view, lower courts in cases of this sort involving a President will almost invariably have to begin by delving into why the State wants the information; why and how much the State needs the information, including whether the State could obtain the information elsewhere; and whether compliance with the subpoena would unduly burden or interfere with a President's official duties."

>> Thomas in dissent:

What Trump might be entitled to: "The President argues that he is absolutely immune from the issuance of any subpoena, but that if the Court disagrees, we should remand so that the District Court can develop a record about this particular subpoena. I agree with the majority that the President is not entitled to absolute immunity from issuance of the subpoena. But he may be entitled to relief against its enforcement. I therefore agree with the President that the proper course is to vacate and remand."

The president is very busy: "The demands on the President's time and the importance of his tasks are extraordinary, and the office of the President cannot be delegated to subordinates. A subpoena imposes both demands on the President's limited time and a mental burden, even when the President is not directly engaged in complying. This understanding of the Presidency should guide courts in deciding whether to enforce a subpoena for the President's documents."

>> Alito in dissent:

Adjust the laws, at least for a bit: "It is not enough to recite sayings like 'no man is above the law' and 'the public has a right to every man's evidence.' These sayings are true—and important—but they beg the question. The law applies equally to all persons, including a person who happens for a period of time to occupy the Presidency. But there is no question that the nature of the office demands in some instances that the application of laws be adjusted at least until the person's term in office ends."

Here's the risk: "The opinion of the Court provides no real protection for the Presidency. The Court discounts the risk of harassment and assumes that state prosecutors will observe constitutional limitations, ante, at 18, and I also assume that the great majority of state prosecutors will carry out their responsibilities responsibly. But for the reasons noted, there is a very real risk that some will not."