This DOJ lawsuit against LA's sanctuary city policy scores 33.5 on constitutional damage (A) and 29.2 on distraction/hype (B), with D=+4.3, qualifying as Mixed. A-score: High separation of powers concerns (4.5) as federal government sues to compel local cooperation with immigration enforcement, testing federalism boundaries. Strong rule of law impact (4) regarding enforcement discretion and intergovernmental obligations. Moderate election interference dimension (3.5) as immigration enforcement becomes politicized weapon. Civil rights concerns (2.5) for immigrant communities. Enforcement_action mechanism adds 15% modifier; single_state scope reduces 5%. Severity multipliers: precedent elevated (1.15) for federal-local enforcement conflicts, durability moderate (1.1), reversibility slightly favorable (0.95). B-score: High outrage potential (8) on immigration wedge issue, strong media coverage (7), moderate meme-ability (6), lower novelty (4) as sanctuary city conflicts are recurring. Layer 2 strategic value high: narrative pivot (8) to immigration enforcement, mismatch (7) between legal action and actual enforcement impact, pattern match (7) to federal overreach narratives. Intentionality moderate-high (11/15) given predictable political theater around sanctuary cities. Mixed classification appropriate: both scores exceed 25, delta within ±10 range, indicating genuine constitutional tensions exploited for political advantage.