1. This Court's jurisdictional-sequencing decisions establish that a federal court may resolve a case on any non-merits question. This Court holds that there is no absolute jurisdictional hierarchy for deciding the non-merits question. The Eleventh Circuit, however, concludes that Article III standing must be decided first. Must a federal court resolve standing issues before resolving other dispositive, non-merits questions?

2. In 2014, without statutory authority, the district court partially vacated a 2009 final order of forfeiture. The criminal case defendant appealed that decision, arguing the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing. - Does a criminal case defendant always have constitutional standing in the criminal case? - Does a citizen's interest in ensuring Article III judicial power was not abused create constitutional standing? - Did the appellate court deny the defendant due process by dismissing without allowing the defendant opportunity to prove a possessory interest?

Must a federal court resolve standing issues before resolving other dispositive, non-merits questions?