Is it appropriate for courts to sua sponte dismiss actions for want of subject matter jurisdiction despite Congress' intent to allow enforcement of established law and address agency misconduct?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is it appropriate for courts to contend with this Court or Congress established law through sua , sponte invocation of affirmative defenses and dismiss actions for want of subject matter jurisdiction from the Administrative Procedures Act despite this Court remand of subject matter jurisdiction exactly ; as Congress intended to abut agency conduct that _ violates Article III rights of Article ITI litigants pursing enforcement of this Court’s established law, . and as that conduct can originate from admitted or suspected Appointments Clause violations? : 2. Is it appropriate for courts to dismiss sua sponte an aggrieved party’s judicial review Congress intended ; and mandates for agency misconduct such as known or suspected Privacy Act violations explicit in 1996 . Pilot Records Improvement Act and the Freedom of ; Information Act where courts have a prevalent history holding subject matter jurisdiction under state and ; federal causes of action? 3. Is it appropriate for courts to swa sponte dismiss Congress mandated judicial review and enforcement ; of agency orders that are explicit for whistleblowers’ : immediate reinstatement; that cannot be stayed for any reason; and that sua sponte dismissal has the deleterious effect of vacating the agency order without = due process to the whistleblower and renders the law inconsequential from that judicial activism? it 4. Is it appropriate for courts to uphold or affirm swa ; , sponte dismissal despite exhaustive post judgment relief motions, the present and developing diversity claims and valid questions of law were not provided ; required notice of court intent and precluding without offering substantial reasoning, why any amended ; claim could not overcome or cure any alleged defect? 5. Is it appropriate for courts to untimely sua sponte . dismiss matters without required hearings where the court is bound by law to disclose potential conflict with any party to the action that must be waived if . the court has not volunteered recusal? :