In Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C.Cir.2006), the court thus observed that the liberty interest shielded by the Establishment Clause is "protection against government imposition of a state religion or religious preference," id. at 302. Stating that "the Establishment Clause is implicated as soon as the government engages in impermissible action," id., the court explained that unlike freedom of expression cases, for example, "the harm inflicted by religious establishment is self-executing and requires no attendant conduct on the part of the individual," id. at 303; see also id. at 302. In describing the impermissible government action at issue, the court stated: Where, as here, the charge is one of official preference of one religion over another, such governmental endorsement "sends a message to nonadherents of the favored denomination that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." Id. at 302 (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring)). The court held that such an allegation sufficed to show irreparable harm, or "injury that is beyond remediation by monetary damages," id. at 297, for the purpose of obtaining injunctive relief, crediting appellants' allegation of "the harm that flows from the `forbidden message' of marginalization that the Navy's actions send to them," id. at 299 (quoting Appellants' Br. at 20). The court did not expressly hold that appellants had Article III standing, but see Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998), but noted that its legal "conclusion presupposes, of course, that the party has standing to allege such a violation," Chaplaincy, 454 F.3d at 304 n. 8.