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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. This Court's 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? ii