Did the inferior courts err in applying Article III standing rules to jurisdictional objections and in interpreting the prerequisites for disclosure of substance use disorder records?

I. Did the inferior courts err: 1) by failing to apply, or 2) by misapplying, settled Article III standing rules to factual jurisdictional objections allowing expansion of the record? II. Is a use or disclosure “order of a court of competent jurisdiction granted after application showing good cause ” (42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(b)(2)(C)), a prerequisite to suit; and, does its absence debar prosecution under 28 U.S.C. § 547(1)? III. The Defendant is a beneficiary of the Confidentiality of records statute (42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2); and, its rules (42 C.F.R. Part 2). Does compelled disclosure or use of sensitive, substance use disorder records, withstand exacting scrutiny in this case? r