The case of Ronald W. Rosenberger vs Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia in 1994 revolved around a dispute over freedom of speech and religion. The University had refused to fund a student publication, Wide Awake Productions (WAP), because it was deemed as promoting or manifesting a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality, which violated the university's policy against funding religious activities. Rosenberger argued that this refusal infringed upon his First Amendment rights to free speech and exercise of religion. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rosenberger with a 5-4 decision stating that the university's denial constituted viewpoint discrimination, which is impermissible under the First Amendment. It held that while public universities may refuse to subsidize certain types of speech based on content-neutral criteria, they cannot discriminate based on viewpoint.

In the dissenting opinion for Ronald W. Rosenberg, et al. v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia et al., Justice Souter argued that the university's denial to fund a Christian student publication was not an act of discrimination against religious speech but rather a legitimate effort to maintain separation between church and state as required by the Establishment Clause in First Amendment jurisprudence. He contended that providing public funding directly to support religious proselytization would be tantamount to government endorsement or sponsorship of religion, which is constitutionally prohibited. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s viewpoint on neutrality towards religion; stating it should mean neither favoring nor disfavoring religion - not treating secular and religious organizations alike without considering constitutional constraints imposed by Establishment clause.