May procedures set forth by section 3221 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-136), and its regulations be, technically jurisdictional?

I.

Defendant claims she is a beneficiary of the Confidentiality of records statute (42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2), and its implementing regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 2). Is it fundamentally wrong to bar fact-finding; where new and undisputed evidence shows the plaintiff's allegations of Article III standing do not pass muster?

II.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power. 1) Must, questions of Article III standing be answered first; 2) must, jurisdictional facts appear affirmatively in the materials of record; and 3) is it ever too late to challenge a plaintiff's Article III standing?

III.

Whether procedures under the CARES Act section 3221 are technically jurisdictional and whether Article III standing can be challenged at any stage of proceedings