Federal court blocking oversight of immigration enforcement represents substantial constitutional damage across multiple vectors. Rule_of_law (4.5): Removing judicial review of executive enforcement actions eliminates critical accountability mechanism and checks on federal power. Civil_rights (4.5): Immigration sweeps without oversight create severe due process concerns, potential for rights violations without remedy, disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations. Separation (4.0): Court action that removes judicial oversight paradoxically weakens separation of powers by eliminating checks on executive enforcement. Election (3.5): Immigration enforcement is highly salient political issue, timing during enforcement expansion significant. Capture (3.0): Reflects potential alignment between judiciary and executive enforcement priorities. Judicial mechanism warrants 1.25 modifier for precedent-setting nature. Single-state scope (0.85) but Chicago is major sanctuary city making this symbolically significant. Severity multipliers elevated: durability 1.2 (court ruling requires legislative/appellate reversal), precedent 1.2 (could apply to other jurisdictions). B-score elevated due to immigration issue salience, sanctuary city context, timing with federal enforcement expansion. Layer1 (24/40): High outrage potential in immigrant communities and civil liberties advocates, strong media coverage of immigration enforcement. Layer2 (25/40): Timing aligns with broader immigration crackdown narrative, significant mismatch between oversight removal and accountability norms. Intentionality moderate (8/15): fits pattern of reducing constraints on enforcement. D-score +23.7 indicates primary constitutional damage, but both scores exceed 25 making this Mixed category - real damage with significant amplification potential.