TITLE: JUST IN: Supreme Court Makes Dramatic Anti-Trump Ruling; Donald Tweet Tantrum Coming
SENTENCE 1: Rule… This win, coupled with the administration’s actions in proposing to repeal the rule and seek input on how to properly define ‘waters of the U.S.,’ puts us one step closer to addressing this deeply problematic rule and the confusion it has created.’  The administration’s apparent legal incompetence on the matter of the Waters of the U.S.
SENTENCE 2: In the aftermath of the rule’s implementation, interests in the matter brought dozens of lawsuits against the government, and in one of them, the Supreme Court has just unanimously ruled against the government — in other words, against the Trump administration.
SENTENCE 3: National Mining Association President and CEO Hal Quinn was thrilled with the outcome, commenting Monday:  ‘Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision provides much needed clarity and affirms our longstanding position that the Clean Water Act empowers the federal district courts, not the courts of appeals, to initially review legal challenges to the Waters of the U.S.

Bias label: moderately
Annotator rationales:
If you use terms like 'dramatic' and 'anti-Trump' to describe a ruling, then you are employing sensationalist tactics. This exaggeration capture the audience's attention and emphasize extreme reactions. This approach polarizes viewpoints and shapes the reader's perspective before they fully understand the details of the case, leading them to believe the law is outrageous and unexpected.
If you use 'tantrum' to describe Trump's behavior, then you are using a sensationalist term (subjective) that exaggerates his actions, portraying him as childish and framing his behavior in a negative light.
If you use 'legal incompetence' to describe the administration's actions, then you are making a subjective judgment that could be seen as disrespectful or biased, rather than offering a neutral assessment of the situation.