While the two cases both were 7-2 decisions, the court's majority noted that the two dissenters - Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito - both agreed that a President did not enjoy 'absolute immunity' as argued by the President's lawyers.
"On that point the Court is unanimous," the Chief Justice wrote.
In the first case, the Court said investigators led by the New York County District Attorney's office, were well within their power to subpoena the President's accounting firm.
"Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President," the court's majority found.
"A President may avail himself of the same protections available to every other citizen, including the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds permitted by state law, which usually include bad faith and undue burden or breadth," the Court stated.
In the case dealing with Congressional subpoenas, the same lineup of Justices basically chided both sides - finding Congress was seeking information in an unfocused, overly broad manner, and that the President's desire to block all information was not an acceptable legal answer.
"Congressional subpoenas for the President’s personal information implicate weighty concerns regarding the separation of powers," the Chief Justice wrote. "Neither side, however, identifies an approach that accounts for these concerns."
The ruling in the New York case can be found here.
The ruling in the Congressional case is linked here.
Both will be the subject of more litigation in lower courts.