Benjamin v. United States (In Re Benjamin), 932 F.3d 293

Kenneth Benjamin was the designated beneficiary of his sister’s Social Security disability benefits; SSA later determined an overpayment and recouped roughly $6,000 by withholding benefits from 2014–2015 and resumed a $536 monthly withholding in 2017.
Benjamin requested administrative reconsideration and a waiver; the SSA delayed, denied the waiver, and Benjamin appealed administratively (appeal pending).
Benjamin filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in May 2017 and sued the SSA in bankruptcy court seeking repayment of the amounts the SSA had withheld and returned to him the $536 withheld shortly before his bankruptcy filing.
The SSA moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars federal-court jurisdiction outside the § 405(g) review process; the bankruptcy and district courts dismissed/affirmed on that ground.
The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding § 405(h)’s third sentence—expressly barring actions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346—does not, by its plain text, bar bankruptcy-court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334; the case is remanded for the bankruptcy court to determine whether Benjamin’s claims are instead channeled to § 405(g) under § 405(h)’s second sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 405(h)’s third sentence bars bankruptcy-court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 for claims "arising under" Title II	Benjamin: § 405(h)(3) only bars actions under §§ 1331 and 1346 as written and does not mention § 1334, so bankruptcy jurisdiction remains available	SSA: The 1984 recodification did not change substance; § 405(h) should be read to bar all federal jurisdiction over such claims (including § 1334) via the recodification canon	Court: Reversed — § 405(h)(3) must be read according to its plain text; it bars only §§ 1331 and 1346 and does not strip § 1334 jurisdiction
Whether § 405(h)’s second sentence channels Benjamin’s claims into § 405(g) (thus depriving bankruptcy court jurisdiction regardless of § 1334)	Benjamin: His suit challenges SSA’s collection procedure and regulatory violations (not entitlement decisions), so claims are not channeled into § 405(g)	SSA: The claims implicate overpayment/entitlement and thus must be exhausted and channeled to § 405(g)	Court: On remand, bankruptcy court must decide factual/legal character of claims; § 405(h)(2) channels only decisions affecting entitlement to benefits (final decisions made after the statutorily prescribed hearing)

Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, 529 U.S. 1 (1999) (§ 405(h) makes § 405(g)’s review procedure exclusive for claims within its scope)
Bodimetric Health Servs. Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty, 903 F.2d 480 (7th Cir. 1990) (read recodification as preserving prior breadth of jurisdictional bar)
In re Bayou Shores SNF, LLC, 828 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2016) (applied recodification canon to conclude § 405(h) bars § 1334 jurisdiction)
In re Town & Country Home Nursing Servs., Inc., 963 F.2d 1146 (9th Cir. 1991) (held § 405(h) bars only §§ 1331 and 1346 and does not preclude § 1334 jurisdiction)
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997) (recodification canon does not override clear statutory text)
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) (§ 405(g) review limited to final decisions made after a hearing; petitions to reopen may be denied without hearing and thus fall outside § 405(g))
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) (example of recodification canon when revised text plausibly retains prior meaning)