TITLE: Justice Dept. Says DC Metro Violated Religious Freedom of Archdiocese by Blocking Christmas Ads
SENTENCE 1: The Justice Department argues that the the application of WMATA's guidelines is "precisely the type of viewpoint discrimination" that the Supreme Court precluded in the 1995 case of Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, in which the court ruled that the public school may not withhold funding from a Christian student publication that is otherwise available to secular student publications.
SENTENCE 2: The Department of Justice filed a 14-page amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday in defense of the archdiocese, which is suing the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority after its bus advertisement for the "Find the Perfect Gift" Christmas campaign was rejected.
SENTENCE 3: "An ad proclaiming that the perfect Christmas gift is jewelry and another that the perfect Christmas gift is Jesus obviously offer competing perspectives on the meaning of the holiday, yet WMATA permits only the former."

Bias label: slightly
Annotator rationales:
If the text references the 1995 case without clarifying how it applies to the current situation, then it risks oversimplifying the legal precedent and creating a misleading comparison between university funding and public transit advertising.
If the text uses the phrase 'precisely the type of viewpoint discrimination,' then it risks framing the issue in absolute terms without acknowledging the complexity of applying free speech principles to public transit advertising policies.
If the text portrays the lawsuit as straightforward without exploring the nuances of WMATA’s advertising policies, then it risks presenting a one-sided narrative that favors the archdiocese’s perspective.
If the text juxtaposes commercial and religious messages without acknowledging the broader implications of allowing religious content in public transit advertising, then it risks oversimplifying the issue and ignoring the challenges of balancing free speech with neutrality.
If the text uses the word 'obviously,' then it risks assuming that readers will agree with the premise without providing evidence or addressing counterarguments about why WMATA might treat these ads differently.