Full opinion text
CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge: Bayou Shores SNF, LLC (“Bayou Shores”) operates a skilled nursing facility in St. Petersburg, Florida. Most of Bayou Shores’ patients are on Medicare or Medicaid, and over ninety percent of its revenue is derived from Medicare and Medicaid patients. It receives compensation for Medicare and Medicaid services through provider agreements entered into with the federal and state governments. Bayou Shores’ entitlement to participate in the provider agreements depends on its continued compliance with qualification requirements for such facilities that are established by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. After an unchallenged exercise of her statutory oversight authority, the Secretary determined that Bayou Shores was not in substantial compliance with the Medicare program participation requirements, and that conditions in its facility constituted an immediate jeopardy to residents’ health and safety. By letter dated July 22, 2014, the Secretary notified Bayou Shores that its Medicare provider agreement “will be terminated at 11:59 pm on August 3, 2014.” The termination of Bayou Shores’ Medicare provider agreement triggered the termination of its Medicaid provider agreement as well. To avoid the consequences of termination of its provider agreements, Bayou Shores sought protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida. Rejecting the jurisdictional challenge from the Secretary, the bankruptcy court assumed authority over the Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements as part of the debtor’s estate, enjoined the Secretary from terminating the provider agreements, determined for itself that Bayou Shores was qualified to participate in the provider agreements, required the Secretary to maintain the stream of monetary benefit under the agreements, reorganized the debtor’s estate, and finally issued its Confirmation Order on December 31, 2014. On appeal, in a June 26, 2015, Order, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida upheld the Secretary’s jurisdictional challenge and reversed the Confirmation Order with respect to the assumption of the debtor’s Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements. See In re Bayou Shores SNF, LLC, 533 B.R. 337, 343 (M.D. Fla. 2015). Bayou Shores timely appeals the decision- of the district court. The appeal turns on the jurisdictional question. From the Social Security Amendments of 1939 until 1984, it is undisputed that bankruptcy courts lacked jurisdiction over Medicare claims. The statute barring such jurisdiction was finally recodified in 1984 to reflect an earlier recodification of the Judicial Code. In cases involving the interpretation of statutory language changed in a recodi-fication, it has long been established that no change in the previous recodified law is recognized unless Congress’s intention to make a substantive change is “clearly expressed.” United States v. Ryder, 110 U.S. 729, 740, 4 S.Ct. 196, 28 L.Ed. 308 (1884). Now the central question is whether the statutory revision in this case demonstrated Congress’s clear intention to vest the bankruptcy courts with jurisdiction over Medicare claims. We think it is abundantly clear that Congress expressed no such intention. Therefore, after careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, and for the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s Order. I. BACKGROUND The relevant facts of this case are generally undisputed and ably set out by the district court in the opinion below. See In re Bayou Shores SNF, LLC, 533 B.R. 337, 338-40 (M.D. Fla. 2015). A brief summary follows. A. Bayou Shores’ “Skilled Nursing Facility” As noted above, Bayou Shores operates a “skilled nursing facility” in St. Peters-burg, Florida, and approximately ninety percent of Bayou Shores’ revenue is derived from caring for Medicare and Medicaid patients. To be eligible for the Medicare/Medicaid program, Bayou Shores entered into so-called “provider agreements” with the federal and Florida state governments, respectively, which provide reimbursement to Bayou Shores for the provision of medical services to Bayou Shores’ Medicare/Medicaid patients. As a condition of payment under these agreements Bayou Shores must comply with certain regulatory requirements pertaining to skilled nursing facilities. The Plaintiffs in this case are the government agencies primarily tasked with monitoring Bayou Shores’ compliance with these regulations: the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) (collectively, “the Government”). AHCA is responsible for conducting surveys of skilled nursing facilities in Florida and administering the state’s Medicaid program. HHS administers Medicare nationally, and uses AHCA’s surveys to decide whether skilled nursing facilities in Florida are compliant with the regulations, and if not, what remedial action to take. When conditions at a skilled nursing facility pose immediate jeopardy to the health or safety of the facility’s patients, the law requires the Secretary to select and execute an appropriate remedy. On February 10, 2014, AHCA conducted such a survey at Bayou Shores’ skilled nursing facility. As a result of the survey, AHCA reported to HHS that Bayou Shores was not compliant with the relevant regulations. The survey noted a number of problems including failing to correctly track residents’ “Do Not Resuscitate” orders, poor patient hygiene, and unsecured expired medications. AHCA determined that at least some of these deficiencies posed a threat of immediate jeopardy to Bayou Shores’ patients. Bayou Shores.was given an opportunity to remedy these deficiencies. In a follow-up survey on March 20, 2014, AHCA again found a number of deficiencies. These included Bayou Shores placing a “known sexual offender” in a room with a disabled patient without informing that patient, and subsequently failing to appropriately handle an alleged sexual assault by the “known sexual offender” reported by the disabled patient. As with the previous survey, AHCA found that at least some of these deficiencies posed a threat of immediate jeopardy to Bayou Shores’ patients. Bayou Shores was again given the opportunity to remedy the deficiencies. The proverbial “last straw” was a final survey on July 11, 2014, in which further deficiencies were identified, including allowing a mentally impaired resident to leave the facility unaccompanied on a hot Florida day (he was later found at a bus station). AHCA again determined that at least some of these deficiencies placed Bayou Shores’ residents in immediate jeopardy. After the third finding of noncompliance, HHS sent Bayou Shores a letter on July 22, 2014 notifying Bayou Shores that its non-compliance posed an “immediate jeopardy to [Bayou Shores’] residents’ health and safety,” and that HHS was exercising its regulatory discretion to terminate Bayou Shores’ Medicare provider agreement. HHS’s letter stated that the “Medicare provider agreement will be terminated at 11:59 pm on August 3, 2014.” The termination of Bayou Shores’ Medicare provider agreement triggered the termination of Bayou Shores’ Medicaid provider agreement. B. Bankruptcy Court Proceedings Two days before this looming deadline, on August 1, 2014, Bayou Shores sought emergency injunctive relief from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to prevent the termination of the provider agreements. The district court initially granted Bayou Shores’ request for a temporary restraining order. However, on motion of HHS, the district court dismissed Bayou Shores’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On August 15, 2014, the court found that Bayou Shores had not exhausted its administrative remedies, and thus Medicare’s jurisdictional bar (42 U.S.C. § 405(h)) prevented the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the termination of the provider agreements. See Bayou Shores SNF, LLC v. Burwell, No. 8:14-CV-1849-T-33MAP, 2014 WL 4059900,*6-8 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2014). Approximately an hour after issuance of the district court’s order, Bayou Shores filed a Voluntary Petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and sought an emergency injunction from the bankruptcy court preventing HHS and AHCA from terminating the provider agreements. The Government, at each opportunity, challenged the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to order assumption of the provider agreements. On August 25, 2014, the bankruptcy court issued the preliminary injunction sought by Bayou Shores. The bankruptcy court reasoned that it had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, the provider agreements were property of the estate, and an automatic stay preventing HHS and AHCA from terminating the agreements was thus proper. At a subsequent evidentiary hearing on August 26, the bankruptcy court heard testimony from doctors, patients, and other Bayou Shores witnesses. Concluding that in its view Bayou Shores’ patients did not appear to be in any immediate jeopardy, the bankruptcy court issued an order on September 5, 2014 that (among other things) forbade HHS and AHCA from terminating Bayou Shores’ provider agreements. After further proceedings, on December 31, 2014 the bankruptcy court issued its Confirmation Order. See In re Bayou Shores SNF, LLC, 525 B.R. 160 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014). In the Confirmation Order, the bankruptcy court again stated its belief that jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C § 1334, and rejected HHS and AHCA’s argument that the same 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bar applied to the bankruptcy court as applied to the district court. The bankruptcy court reasoned that the plain language of § 405(h), which refers only to 28 U.S.C §§ 1331 and 1346, did not prevent the bankruptcy court from exercising jurisdiction over the assumption of the provider agreements under § 1334. Id. at 166. The bankruptcy court further concluded that because Bayou Shores appeared to have remedied the deficiencies it was originally cited for, Bayou Shores had provided adequate assurances of future performance under the provider agreements, and thus was eligible to assume them. Finding the remainder of the statutory requirements fulfilled, the bankruptcy court confirmed Bayou Shore’s Chapter 11 plan. The bankruptcy court also ordered the dissolution of the automatic stay and preliminary injunction. C. District Court Proceedings HHS and AHCA separately appealed both the bankruptcy court’s September 5, 2014 Order, and the Confirmation Order. The appeals were consolidated by the district court. As they had argued to the bankruptcy court, HHS and AHCA asserted to the district court that 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) denied the bankruptcy court jurisdiction over the provider agreements. The district court agreed. While acknowledging that the bankruptcy court’s reading of § 405(h) was an issue that the Eleventh Circuit had not squarely addressed, the district court noted that the majority of other circuit courts addressing the issue “have examined Congress’ intent when it enacted the jurisdictional bar and concluded that the omission of section 1334 and other jurisdictional grants (like section 1332) was inconsistent with that intent.” In re Bayou Shores, 533 B.R. at 342. The district court reviewed the relevant statutory language and legislative history, as well as decisions from other courts examining the same. In particular, the district court noted that the absence of § 1334 in the recodified 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) appeared to be the result of a codification error. Based on that analysis, the district court held that it “respectfully disagree[d] [with the bankruptcy court] and align[ed] itself with the majority view” in finding that § 405(h) must be understood to bar jurisdiction under § 1334. Id. at 343. Because it was undisputed that Bayou Shores had yet to exhaust its administrative remedies, and “no other independent basis for jurisdiction existed to enjoin and order the assumption of the Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements,” the district court reversed the orders of the bankruptcy court (with respect to the provider agreements). Id. The district court also noted that a hotly contested issue on appeal was “the exact timing of any termination of the provider agreements.” Id. However, the district court found that it did not need to resolve that issue, because the timing was irrelevant to whether or not the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. Id. Bayou Shores timely appealed the district court’s order. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In a bankruptcy case, this Court sits as a second court of review and thus examines independently the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy court and employs the same standards of review as the district court. See Brown v. Gore (In re Brown), 742 F.3d 1809, 1315 (11th Cir. 2014). We review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Id. The district court’s legal determinations are also reviewed de novo. See Dionne v. Simmons (In re Simmons), 200 F.3d 738, 741 (11th Cir. 2000). III. BANKRUPTCY COURT JURISDICTION OVER MEDICARE CLAIMS The primary dispute in this case is purely legal: does 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bar a bankruptcy court from exercising 28 U.S.C. § 1334 jurisdiction over claims that arise under the Medicare Act? Bayou Shores’ primary argument is that the plain text of § 405(h) precludes district court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346 only. The Government argues that the lack of a reference to § 1334 is merely a result of a codification error, and that properly construed the statute requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before bringing a Medicare claim before any district court. Because we conclude that the lack of a reference to § 1334 in § 405(h) is the result of a codification error, we agree with the Government that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over the termination of the provider agreements. To see why, we turn first to an examination of the history of § 405(h). A. Legislative history of § 405(h) The relevant text of the 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) currently reads (emphasis added): (h) Finality of Commissioner’s decision The findings and decision of the Commissioner of Social Security after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social Security shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Commissioner of Social Security, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331 or 13b6 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subehapter. Bayou Shores argues that the third sentence of § 405(h) forbids only an “action” brought under “section 1331 [ie. federal question jurisdiction] or 1346 [ie. suits against the federal government] of Title 28.” Because Bayou Shores’ action was brought under section 1334 of Title 28 (ie. bankruptcy jurisdiction), Bayou Shores argues that § 405(h) does not apply. To understand why Bayou Shores is incorrect however requires a thorough examination of the history of § 405(h), which reveals that the issue is not as straightforward as Bayou Shores suggests. The original text of § 405(h) when passed in 1939 was largely the same as it is today, with the crucial difference for this case emphasized below: (h) The findings and decision of the Board after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Board shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Board, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section of the Judicial Code of the United States to recover on any claim arising under this title. See Social Security Amendments of 1939, Pub. L. No. 76-379, 53 Stat. 1360 (1939) (emphasis added). In 1939, “section 24 of the Judicial Code” defined the original jurisdiction granted to district courts, including jurisdiction over bankruptcy claims (see Judicial Code, Pub. L. No. 61-475, 36 Stat. 1087, § 24(19) (1911)), diversity and federal question claims (id. at § 24(1)), and claims against the United States (id. at § 24(20)). With few exceptions then, section 24 of the Judicial Code originally “contained all of that title’s grants of jurisdiction to United States district courts, save for several special-purpose jurisdictional grants of no relevance to the constitutionality of [Medicare] statutes.” See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756, n. 3, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975). It is thus undisputed that under the original text of § 405(h), bankruptcy court jurisdiction over Medicare claims was barred. In 1948, however, Congress recodified section 24'of the Judicial Code under title 28 of the U.S. Code. As part of that revision, Congress split the district courts’ jurisdictional grants into multiple sections under Title '28. See U.S. Code, Title 28, Pub. L. No. 80-773, 62 Stat. 869 (1948). Among other things, federal question jurisdiction was re-codified to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, diversity jurisdiction to § 1332, suits against the government to § 1346, and bankruptcy jurisdiction to § 1334. See id. at Ch. 85, §§ 1331-1359 (“District Courts; Jurisdiction”). After the 1948 re-codification however, the text of § 405(h) continued to incorrectly refer to “section 24 of the Judicial Code” for approximately the next thirty years. Indeed, the Supreme Court noted this issue in its 1975 Salfi decision. The text in the body of the Court’s opinion replaced the reference in § 405(h) to “section 24 of the Judicial Code” with “[§ 1331 et seq.] of Title 28.” See Salfi, 422 U.S. at 756, 95 S.Ct. 2457. A footnote in the opinion acknowledged the apparent error created by the 1948 Judicial Code recodification. See id. at n. 3. By 1976 (after the Weinberger decision), the Office of the Law Revision Counsel appears to have recognized the error. In the edition of the U.S. Code published that year, the revisers substituted the phrase “section 24 of the Judicial Code of the United States” in § 405(h) with the now current language, “sections 1331 or 1346 of title 28.” A “Codification” note included in the 1976 revision indicates the following about the change: In subsec. (h), “sections 1331 or 1346 of title 28” was substituted for “section 24 of the Judicial Code of the United States” on authority of act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, section 1 of which enacted Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Prior to the enactment of Title 28, section 24 of the Judicial Code was classified to section 41 of Title 28. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (1976). The revisers expanded somewhat on this note in the 1982 version of the code (added text emphasized): In subsec. (h), “sections 1331 or 1346 of title 28” was substituted for “section 24 of the Judicial Code of the United States” on authority of act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, section 1 of which enacted Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Prior to the enactment of Title 28, section 24 of the Judicial Code was classified to section 41 of Title 28. Jurisdictional provisions previously covered by section 41 of Title 28 are covered by sections 1381 to 134,8, 1350 to 1357, 1359, 1397, 1399, 2361, 2401, and 2402 of Title 28. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (1982). A year later, H.R. 3805, the “Technical Corrections Act of 1983” was introduced to the floor of the House. 129 Cong. Rec. 23,439 (1983) (statement of Rep. Rosten-kowski). A report on the bill describes its derivation and purpose as follows: The technical amendments made by the Technical Corrections Act of 1983 are intended to clarify and conform various provisions adopted by the acts listed above. The bill is based on a review by the staffs of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Committee on Ways and Means, taking into account the comments submitted to the Congress that concerned changes that would be technical in nature. The bill was developed with the assistance of the Treasury Department, the Social Security Administration, and the Health Care Financing Administration. See Staff of J. Comm, on Taxation, 98th Cong., Desoription of H.R. 3805 (Teohnioal CORRECTIONS Aot of 1983), at 1 (J. Comm. Print 1983) (“H.R. 3805 Rept”). Among the numerous “technical amendments” was an amendment to § 405(h), proposing to enact the prior codification into positive law: (D) Section 205(h) of such Act is amended by striking out “Section 24 of the Judicial Code of the United States” and inserting in lieu thereof “section 1331 or 1346 of title 28, United States Code,”. See Technical Corrections Act of 1983: Hearing on H.R. 3805 Before the H. Comm, on Ways and Means, 98th Cong. 79 (1984) (draft text of H.R. 3805). That section of the act, titled “Sec. 403. Other Technical Corrections in [old age, survivors, and disability insurance] Provisions,” was followed by this in “Sec. 404. Effective Dates”: (b)(1) Except to the extent otherwise specifically provided in this title, the amendments made by section 403 shall be effective on the date of enactment of this Act; but none of such amendments shall be construed as changing or affecting any right, liability, status, or interpretation which existed (under the provisions of law involved) before that date. See id. at 89-90 (emphasis added). The legislative history of H.R. 3805 appears to characterize this and other “technical corrections” as “certain corrections of spelling, punctuation, and cross-references in title XVIII of the Social Security Act and in cross-references to the Internal Revenue Code.” See H.R. 3805 Rept. at 37. Moreover, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, noted when the bill was introduced: “I would like to emphasize that this bill intends simply to correct technical errors and to better reflect the policies established by the Congress in enacting the original legislation.” 129 Cong. Rec. 23321, 23440 (1983). H.R. 3805 did not contain any provisions relating to the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts. Although H.R. 3805 did not become law, in 1984 it was merged into another bill, H.R. 4170, which Congress passed as The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-369, 98 Stat. 494 (1984) (hereinafter, the “DRA”). As noted in the bill itself, the general purpose of the DRA was “to provide for tax reform, and for deficit reduction.” See 98 Stat. at 494. The DRA did not contain any provisions relating to the scope of bankruptcy court jurisdiction. The amendment to § 405(h) is located in “DIVISON V — SPENDING REDUCTION ACT OF 1984”, “TITLE VI— OASDI, SSI, AFDC, AND OTHER PROGRAMS,” “Subtitle D — Technical Corrections,” “Sec. 2663. Other technical corrections in the Social Security Act and related provisions.” Consistent with the 1976 and 1982 codification (and the amendment originally proposed in H.R. 3805), section 2663(a)(4)(D) ordered that “Section 205(h) of [the Social Security Act] is amended by striking out ‘section 24 of the Judicial Code of the United States’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘section 1331 or 1346 of title 28, United States Code,’.” See 98 Stat. at 1162. Section 2664 of the DRA further requires that “[e]xcept to the extent otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle, the amendments made by section 2663 shall be effective on the date of the enactment of this Act; but none of such amendments shall be construed as changing or affecting any right, liability, status, or interpretation which existed (under the provisions of law involved) before that date.” See id. at 1171-72. The House committee report on the DRA explains the reasons for the “technical corrections” of certain sections in the bill, but does not specifically address the amendments to § 405(h). The report generally states that the “bill makes certain corrections of spelling, punctuation, cross-references and other clerical amendments to the Social Security Act and related provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.” See H.R. Rep. No. 98-432, pt. 2, at 1663 (1984). Nothing in the report or elsewhere in the legislative history, in so far as we have been able to determine, expresses any intention to change the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, let alone to grant bankruptcy courts parallel authority with HHS over Medicare claims. It thus appears that the current text of § 405(h) is the result of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel’s mistaken codification, an error enacted into positive law by the DRA. While the Supreme Court has yet to speak on this precise issue, the Court has had reason to interpret § 405(h) in a number of cases that are helpful in resolving the current dispute. We thus turn to an examination of those cases before turning back to the codification issue. B. Supreme Court cases interpreting § 405(h) The earliest relevant Supreme Court decision, Salfi, was decided prior to the DRA amendment to § 405(h). In Salfi the plaintiff brought suit to challenge the Social Security Administration’s “duration-of-relationship requirements” as unconstitutional. 422 U.S. at 752-53, 95 S.Ct. 2457. The district court exercised jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. at 755, 95 S.Ct. 2457. While deciding the constitutional question against the plaintiff, more relevant for our purposes is the Court’s analysis of the “serious question as to whether the District Court had jurisdiction over this suit” to begin with. See Salfi, Id. at 756, 95 S.Ct. 2457. In examining the requirements of § 405(h), the Court found that the third sentence, “No action against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under (§ 1331 et seq.) of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under (Title II of the Social Security Act)” should be read as more than merely a “codified requirement of administrative exhaustion” because the first two sentences of § 405(h) already require administrative exhaustion. Id. at 757, 95 S.Ct. 2457. Those first two sentences prevent review of any decision of the Secretary other than as set out in § 405(g), which prescribes “typical requirements for review of matters before an administrative agency, including administrative exhaustion.” Id. at 758, 95 S.Ct. 2457. The Court thus explained that the third sentence of § 405(h) acted to bar actions under § 1381, even where administrative remedies had been exhausted. Id. at 757, 95 S.Ct. 2457. Somewhat less than a decade later, the Court again considered § 405(h) again in Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984). In Ringer, the underlying factual dispute involved “challenges to the policy of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) as to the payment of Medicare benefits for a surgical procedure known as bilateral carotid body resection (BCBR).” Id. at 604-05, 104 S.Ct. 2013. The focus of the case was whether the plaintiffs claims “arose” under the Medicare Act. See e.g. id. at 612— 613, 104 S.Ct. 2013. But in characterizing § 405(h) and its own holding in Salfi, the Court held that “[t]he third sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), made applicable to the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. § 1395Ü, provides that § 405(g), to the exclusion of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all ‘claim[s] arising under’ the Medicare Act.” Id. at 614-15, 104 S.Ct. 2013. Perhaps most instructive is a more recent case, decided long after the 1984 DRA amendments to § 405(h), Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 120 S.Ct. 1084, 146 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000). The plaintiffs in Illinois Council were an association of nursing homes challenging the legality and constitutionality of certain Medicare-related regulations. Id. at 5, 120 S.Ct. 1084. As in Ringer, the key issue in Illinois Council was whether the plaintiffs claims “arose” under the Medicare Act (and were thus subject to the § 405(h) jurisdictional bar). Id. at 9-10, 120 S.Ct. 108. However, in explaining the application of § 405(h) to the case, the Court again emphasized that the effect of § 405(h) was to reach beyond normal principles of “administrative exhaustion” and “ripeness,” and prevent even the application of normal exceptions to those doctrines. Id. at 12, 120 S.Ct. 1084. The Court held that § 405(h) “demands the ‘channeling’ of virtually all legal attacks through the agency.” Id. at 13, 120 S.Ct. 1084 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Court explained the balancing policy interests inherent in such a scheme: [I]t assures" the agency greater opportunity to apply, interpret, or revise policies, regulations, or statutes without possibly premature interference by different individual courts applying “ripeness” and “exhaustion” exceptions case by case. But this assurance comes at a price, namely, occasional individual, delay-related hardship. In the context of a massive, complex health and safety program such as Medicare, embodied in hundreds of pages of statutes and thousands of pages of often interrelated regulations, any of which may become the subject of a legal challenge in any of several different courts, paying this price may seem justified. Id. at 13, 120 S.Ct. 1084. As the Court noted, whatever one may think of such a policy, it was clearly that chosen by Congress in creating § 405(h). A few salient points about § 405(h) are thus clear from the relevant Supreme Court cases. Salfi makes clear that the first two sentences of § 405(h) require standard administrative exhaustion of remedies prior to bringing Medicare claims before a district court. See Salfi, 422 U.S. at 757, 95 S.Ct. 2457. Moreover, § 405(h) “demands the ‘channeling’ of virtually all legal attacks through the agency,” making § 405(g) the “sole avenue for judicial review for all ‘elaim[s] arising under’ the Medicare Act.” See Illinois Council, 529 U.S. at 13, 120 S.Ct. 1084; Ringer, 466 U.S. at 615-14, 104 S.Ct. 2013. However, we must acknowledge a common thread running through all three cases: each involved a suit brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a jurisdictional grant that all parties agree was barred by § 405(h) prior to the 1984 amendments and continues to be barred after the amendments. Thus, none of these cases answers the question before us, namely, does § 405(h) bar jurisdiction under § 1334? To further examine the question, we turn to the decisions of our sister circuits. C. Courts split over the application of § 405(h) to district courts The decisions of our sister circuits (and the lower courts) fall into two categories. The first group of cases holds that the jurisdictional bar of § 405(h) applies to cases brought under § 1332 jurisdiction (■ie. diversity jurisdiction), notwithstanding the fact that § 1332 (like § 1334) is not mentioned in the statute. The second group of cases directly considers whether § 1334 jurisdiction can lie in the face of § 405(h). 1. Cases holding that § 405(h) bars jurisdiction The primary case among the first category of § 1332 decisions is from the Seventh Circuit in Bodimetric Health Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas., 903 F.2d 480 (7th Cir. 1990). In determining whether a review of plaintiffs claims in a district court was precluded by § 405(h), the Seventh Circuit noted the “curious” fact that § 405(h) on its face appears to bar “actions brought pursuant to federal question jurisdiction and actions brought against the United States but appears to permit actions brought pursuant to diversity jurisdiction.” See id. at 488. However, the Seventh Circuit then analyzed the codification history described supra, holding that in § 2664(b) of the DRA Congress had “clearly expressed” its intent not to substantively change the scope of § 405(h). Id. at 489. Thus, because the statute prior to amendment had clearly barred diversity jurisdiction, the revised statute continued to bar diversity jurisdiction. Id. Both the Third and Eighth circuits have subsequently adopted the holding and analysis of Bodimetric. See Nichole Med. Equip. & Supply, Inc. v. TriCenturion, Inc., 694 F.3d 340, 346-47 (3d Cir. 2012); Midland Psychiatric Associates, Inc. v. United States, 145 F.3d 1000, 1004 (8th Cir. 1998). An earlier Third Circuit case, In re Univ. Med. Ctr., Inc., 973 F.2d 1065, 1073-74 (3d Cir. 1992), appears to suggest (but not hold) that § 405(h) may not apply to bankruptcy courts. However, that case involved a claim that HHS had violated an automatic bankruptcy stay. The court’s opinion hinged on its holding that such a claim did not “arise” under the Medicare act. Id. at 1073. In Nichole Med. Equip., the Third Circuit explicitly adopted Bodimetric, noting that “Congress clearly prohibited federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction over claims arising under the [Medicare] Act.” See 694 F.3d at 347. Several circuits have thus addressed the question of whether § 405(h) bars districts court jurisdiction other than pursuant only to §§ 1331 and 1346. Those circuits read the history of § 405(h) to conclude that the codification error acts to carry forward the original § 405(h)’s jurisdictional restrictions. 2. Cases holding that § 405(h) does not bar § 1334 jurisdiction The second category of cases come first from the Ninth Circuit and begin with In re Town & Country Home Nursing Servs., 963 F.2d 1146 (9th Cir. 1991). The court there was asked to determine if the failure to exhaust administrative remedies precluded a bankruptcy court from exercising jurisdiction over state law tort and contract claims “arising out of the government’s setoff of Medicare overpayments.” Id. at 1154. The Ninth Circuit held that “Section 405(h) only bars actions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346; it in no way prohibits an assertion of jurisdiction under section 1334.” Id. at 1155. The Ninth Circuit appears to have placed great weight on “section 1334’s broad jurisdictional grant over all matters conceivably having an effect on the bankruptcy estate.” Id. However, the court did not discuss or analyze the legislative history relied on in the Bodimetric line of cases. A later Ninth Circuit case, Kaiser v. Blue Cross of California, 347 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir. 2003), cites favorably to both Bodimetric and Midland Psychiatric for what those cases say about a claim that “arises under Medicare.” It appears that the court in Kaiser assumed that the plaintiffs were proceeding under federal-question jurisdiction (which is indisputably precluded by § 405(h)), and thus the only relevant question was whether their claims “arose” under Medicare. But in a dicta discussion of whether there had been a waiver of sovereign immunity, the court noted that “11 U.S.C. § 106(a), which refers to waivers of sovereign immunity in bankruptcy proceedings, could not apply since any consideration of claims against the government in [debtor’s bankruptcy would likely require consideration of the merits of the Medicare claims, again invoking 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Id. at 1117. Thus, Kaiser at least hints that the court would have come to the opposite conclusion of In re Town & Country, ie. by holding that bankruptcy jurisdiction could not trump the exhaustion requirements of §§ 405(g) and (h). A more recent Ninth Circuit decision, Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc., 620 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2010) attempted to address what it characterized as a possible conflict between Kaiser and In re Town & Country. The Do Sung Uhm court cites Kaiser for the proposition that “^jurisdiction over cases ‘arising under’ Medicare exists only under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which requires an agency decision in advance of judicial review.” Id. at 1140-41. In a footnote though, the court acknowledges the tension between Kaiser’s broad reading of § 405(h) and In re Town & Country’s more narrow reading, but reconciles the two on the grounds that In re Town & Country relied on the “special status” of bankruptcy court jurisdiction over bankruptcy issues. Id. at 1141 n. 11. The court concludes that In re Town & Country’s reading of 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) applies “only to actions brought under § 1334, while not bearing on the relationship between § 405(h) and other jurisdictional provisions such as § 1332.” Id. The Ninth Circuit thus joins the other circuit courts in unanimously opining that § 405(h) bars diversity jurisdiction under § 1332, notwithstanding the omission of § 1332 from the text of § 405(h). However, the Ninth Circuit is alone among circuit court decisions in reading § 405(h) to permit bankruptcy court jurisdiction over Medicare claims under § 1334. Many lower courts have also considered the issue of § 1334 jurisdiction. These lower courts have split, with some assuming jurisdiction, and others deciding jurisdiction was barred. Case going both ways have recognized and analyzed the codification error that led to the present omission of § 1334 from the text of § 405(h). Compare e.g. In re Nurses’ Registry & Home Health Corp., 533 B.R. 590, 593-97 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2015) (assuming jurisdiction under § 1334) to In re St. Johns Home Health Agency, Inc., 173 B.R. 238, 245-46 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1994) (holding that § 1334 jurisdiction is barred). We also note some limited scholarship addressing this issue as well. Articles written by members of the bankruptcy bar argue that under the “plain meaning” doctrine, bankruptcy courts’ § 1334 jurisdiction is not barred by § 405(h). See Samuel R. Maizel & Michael B. Potere, Killing the Patient to Cure the Disease: Medicare’s Jurisdictional Bar Does Not Apply to Bankruptcy Courts, 32 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 19, 66 (2015); Peter R. Roest, Recovery of Medicare and Medicaid Over-payments in Bankruptcy, 10 Annals Health L. 1, 1 (2001). Conversely, an article written by current and former counsel for HHS argues that, based on the legislative history, the amended § 405(h) should have the same effect as the prior version, i.e. barring bankruptcy court jurisdiction. See John Aloysius Cogan Jr. & Rodney A. Johnson, Administrative Channeling Under the Medicare Act Clarified: Illinois Council, Section 105(h), and the Application of Congressional Intent, 9 Annals Health L. 125,125 (2000). 3. Mandamus jurisdiction and § 405(h) We note in passing a related issue: whether § 405(h) bars mandamus jurisdiction exercised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. As noted supra, n. 20, this circuit has not decided that issue. See Lifestar Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1293, 1295 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has also repeatedly declined to decide whether mandamus jurisdiction is prohibited by § 405(h). See e.g. Your Home Visiting Nurse Servs., Inc. v. Shalala, 525 U.S. 449, 456 n. 3, 119 S.Ct. 930, 142 L.Ed.2d 919 (1999). However, the great weight of authority from other circuits has almost uniformly found that § 405(h) does not necessarily deprive district courts of mandamus jurisdiction over Medicare claims. Superficially at least, there is some commonality between the issue in those cases regarding § 1361, and the issue in our case involving § 1334, because both jurisdictional provisions are not listed in the text of § 405(h). The commonality is just that though, superficial. As Judge Friendly of the Second Circuit accurately explained, when § 405(h) was passed in 1939, mandamus jurisdiction was not one of the jurisdictional provisions contained in Section 24 of the Judicial Code. See Ellis v. Blum, 643 F.2d 68, 81 (2d Cir. 1981). Thus, unlike § 1334, there is no argument to be made that the codification of section 24 into Title 28 had any impact on the availability of mandamus relief under § 1361. See id.; see also Ganem v. Heckler, 746 F.2d 844, 851 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (noting that absence of § 1361 was unrelated to codification error because even in original version of § 405(h), § 24 of the Judicial Code did not include District of Columbia’s common law jurisdiction to issue mandamus writs). However, the issue of whether a district court can exercise mandamus jurisdiction related to Medicare claims, notwithstanding the § 405(h) bar, is neither in front of the court, nor necessary to resolve the current dispute. As previously, we thus decline to decide the issue. See Lifestar Ambulance Serv., 365 F.3d at 1295 n. 3. D. The Bankruptcy Court Lacked Jurisdiction Under § 405(h) With that considerable background in mind, we turn now to the issue in this case: did 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bar the bankruptcy court below from taking jurisdiction over Bayou Shore’s Medicare provider agreement under 28 U.S.C. § 1334? Because we are persuaded that the 1984 amendments to § 405(h) were a codification and not a substantive change, we align ourselves with the Seventh, Eighth, and Third Circuits and hold that § 405(h) bars § 1334 jurisdiction over claims that “arise under [the Medicare Act].” 1. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 amendment to § 405(h) was a codification and did not substantively change the law. Bayou Shores’ primary argument, and the primary argument of courts holding that § 1334 jurisdiction is not barred § 405(h), is relatively straightforward: the text of the third sentence of § 405(h) does not mention § 1334, and thus, under the “plain meaning” of the statute § 1334 jurisdiction is not barred by § 405(h). Bayou Shores is certainly correct that “when [a] statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts—at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it according to its terms.” Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citations removed); see also Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n, Inc. v. Landstar Sys., Inc., 622 F.3d 1307, 1327 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that “[t]here is no reason for this Court to rewrite a statute because of an alleged scrivener error unless a literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result.”) But that is not the end of the analysis because this case is governed by a particular canon in statutory construction regarding the codification of law, i.e. the process of converting and organizing the Statutes at Large into the U.S. Code. Since virtually the founding of the Republic, it has been recognized that when legislatures codify the law, courts should presume that no substantive change was intended absent a clear indication otherwise. For example, in the oldest case we have been able to locate, Taylor v. Delaney, 2 Cai. Cas. 143, 151 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805), the New York Supreme Court of Judicature held “that where the law, an-tecedently to the revision was settled, either by clear expressions in the statutes, or adjudications on them, the mere change of phraseology shall not be deemed or construed a change of the law, unless such phraseology evidently purports an intention in the legislature to work a change.” The Supreme Court appears to have recognized the canon at least as early as Stewart v. Kahn, 78 U.S. 493, 502, 11 Wall. 493, 20 L.Ed. 176 (1870), where the Court held that “[a] change of language in a revised statute will not change the law from what it was before, unless it be apparent that such was the intention of the legislature.” The Court reiterated the principle in United States v. Ryder, 110 U.S. 729, 740, 4 S.Ct. 196, 28 L.Ed. 308 (1884), holding that “[i]t will not be inferred that the legislature, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their policy, unless such intention be clearly expressed.” This canon of statutory construction has remained undisturbed since that time. See e.g. McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U.S. 619, 629, 4 S.Ct. 142, 28 L.Ed. 269 (1884); Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 302, 12 S.Ct. 617, 36 L.Ed. 429 (1892), abrogated on other grounds, Witherspoon v. State of Ill., 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968); Holm-gren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509, 520, 30 S.Ct. 588, 54 L.Ed. 861 (1910); Anderson v. Pac. Coast S.S. Co., 225 U.S. 187, 199, 32 S.Ct. 626, 56 L.Ed. 1047 (1912); United States v. Sischo, 262 U.S. 165, 168-69, 43 S.Ct. 511, 67 L.Ed. 925 (1923); Hale v. Iowa State Bd. of Assessment & Review, 302 U.S. 95, 102, 58 S.Ct. 102, 82 L.Ed. 72 (1937); Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 227, 77 S.Ct. 787, 1 L.Ed.2d 786 (1957); United States v. FMC Corp., 84 S.Ct. 4, 7, 11 L.Ed.2d 20 (Goldberg, Circuit Justice 1963); United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95, 98 n. 4, 84 S.Ct. 1082, 12 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964); Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 151, 162, 93 S.Ct. 408, 34 L.Ed.2d 375 (1972); Cass v. United States, 417 U.S. 72, 82, 94 S.Ct. 2167, 40 L.Ed.2d 668 (1974); Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (S.C.R.A.P.), 422 U.S. 289, 309 n. 12, 95 S.Ct. 2336, 45 L.Ed.2d 191 (1975); Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 470, 95 S.Ct. 2178, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975); Fulman v. United States, 434 U.S. 528, 538, 98 S.Ct. 841, 55 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 318, 105 S.Ct. 3180, 87 L.Ed.2d 220 (1985); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 554, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989); Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 700, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992); Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 209, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993); Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9, 20, 126 S.Ct. 1264, 164 L.Ed.2d 10 (2006); John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 136, 128 S.Ct. 750, 169 L.Ed.2d 591 (2008). As it happens, a number of these cases from the 20th century arise from an event that directly touches on the issues in our case: the 1948 recodification of the Judicial Code. In one of the earlier eases to examine the 1948 recodification, Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 77 S.Ct. 787,1 L.Ed.52d 786 (1957), the Court considered whether the recodification had substantively changed venue rules in patent cases. The issue was whether or not the specific patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) was supplemented by the more general (and more expansive) civil suit venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Id. at 222, 77 S.Ct. 787. The Court first noted that in a pre-1948 recodification case, Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U.S. 561, 62 S.Ct. 780, 86 L.Ed. 1026 (1942), the Court had already determined that the more specific patent venue provisions in the old Judicial Code of 1911 trumped more general venue provisions for civil suits. The only issue therefore was whether the 1948 recodification (which recodified § 48 of the Judicial Code to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)) had substantively changed the patent venue statute. Fourco Glass, 353 U.S. at 225, 77 S.Ct. 787. Noting that neither the legislative history, nor the Reviser’s Notes, indicated that any substantive change was intended, the Court reasoned that “[t]he change of arrangement, which placed portions of what was originally a single section in two separated sections cannot be regarded as altering the scope and purpose of the enactment. For it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect, unless such intention is clearly expressed.” Id. at 227, 77 S.Ct. 787 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting from Anderson v. Pac. Coast S.S. Co., 225 U.S. 187, 198, 32 S.Ct. 626, 56 L.Ed. 1047 (1912)). The Court thus held that no substantive change to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) had occurred during the 1948 recodification and the result in Stonite Products dictated the outcome of the case. Id. at 227-28, 77 S.Ct. 787. Similarly, in Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 151, 162, 93 S.Ct. 408, 34 L.Ed.2d 375 (1972), the Court rejected the argument that the 1948 Judicial Code revisions substantively changed the existing law concerning appellate court jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in Government civil antitrust cases. The 1948 revision to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) allowed interlocutory appeals of district court order to the courts of appeals, “except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.” Id. Under then-existing law, appellate courts had no jurisdiction over any appeals in Government civil antitrust cases (which were appealed directly to the Supreme Court), and interlocutory appeals to the Supreme Court in Government civil antitrust cases were not permitted. Id. at 154-56, 160, 93 S.Ct. 408. The Court thus reasoned that a possible interpretation of the new language added by the 1948 revisions, “except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court,” was that appellate court jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in Government civil anti-trust cases was now available (contrary to prior law) because “direct review” in the Supreme Court of an interlocutory appeal could not “be had.” Id. at 162, 98 S.Ct. 408. Citing to Fourco Glass, the Court rejected that interpretation because no such change to existing law had been “clearly expressed” by the 1948 revisions. “To the contrary, the Revisers’ Notes fail to reveal any intention to expand the scope of the pre-existing jurisdiction of the courts of appeals over interlocutory appeals; the new § 1292 is described merely as a consolidation of a number of previously separate code provisions — including the general interlocutory appeals provision — ‘with necessary changes in phraseology to effect the consolidation.’ ” Id. at 162-63, 98 S.Ct. 408. The Court thus concluded that the 1948 revisions did not substantively expand the jurisdiction of appellate courts. Id. at 163, 93 S.Ct. 408. Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 456-57, 95 S.Ct. 2178, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975) arose out of a labor dispute between the San Francisco Typographical Union and a local daily newspaper, in which the union and its officers had been cited for criminal contempt in violating certain court orders and subsequently denied a jury trial in the criminal contempt proceedings. A key issue in the case was whether the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts, which authorized courts to grant certain injunctions, permitted jury trials to those found in contempt of the injunctions. Id. at 461, 95 S.Ct. 2178. The parties appeared to agree that prior to the 1948 revisions of the Criminal Code, a contemnor had no right to a jury trial in contempt actions to enforce injunctions issued under the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts, notwithstanding the jury requirements in § 11 of the earlier passed Norris-LaGuardia Act. Petitioners argued however that in recodifying § 11 of Norris-LaGuardia as 18 U.S.C. §3692 in 1948, Congress had overruled its prior policy of not permitting jury trials in contempt actions to enforce injunctions issued under the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts. Id. at 467, 95 S.Ct. 2178. The Court rejected this argument, holding that “[w]e cannot accept the proposition that Congress, without expressly so providing, intended in § 3692 to change the rules for enforcing injunctions,” which rules existed when § 11 was originally passed. See Muniz, 422 U.S. at 468, 95 S.Ct. 2178. The Court examined the legislative history of the recodification and the Reviser’s Notes, which consistently expressed that no substantive change was intended by the revision. Id. at 467-469, 95 S.Ct. 2178. Citing Fourco Glass, the Court reiterated the longstanding rule that “[n]o changes of law or policy ... are to be presumed from changes of language in the revision unless an intent to make such changes is clearly expressed.” Id. at 472, 95 S.Ct. 2178 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus expressed some incredulity at the proposition that the major policy change petitioners argued for could be effected by Congress without any mention of it in any of the legislative history or notes: In view of the express disavowals in the House and Senate Reports on the revisions of both the Criminal Code and the Judicial Code, it would seem difficult at best to argue that a change in the substantive law could nevertheless be effected by a change in the language of a statute without any indication in the Revisers’ Note of that change. It is not tenable to argue that the Revisers’ Note to § 3692, although it explained in detail what words were deleted from and added to what had been § 11 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, simply did not bother to explain at all, much less in detail, that an admittedly substantial right was being conferred on potential contemnors that had been rejected in the defeat of the Ball amendment the previous year and that, historically, contemnors had never enjoyed. See id. at 472, 95 S.Ct. 2178. Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 553-54, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989), involved a question of whether the 1948 recodification of the Judicial Code substantively created new “pendent-party” jurisdiction when it recodified the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (the “FTCA”). Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia rejected that argument, holding that “[u]nder established canons of statutory construction, it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect unless such intention is clearly expressed.” Id. at 554, 109 S.Ct. 2003 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting from Anderson v. Pac. Coast S.S. Co., 225 U.S. 187, 199, 32 S.Ct. 626, 56 L.Ed. 1047 (1912) and citing to United States v. Ryder, 110 U.S. 729, 740, 4 S.Ct. 196, 28 L.Ed. 308 (1884)). Finding “no suggestion, much less a clear expression, that the minor rewording at issue here imported a substantive change,” the Court held that the pre-codification interpretation of the statute continued to hold (i.e. no “pendent-party” jurisdiction under the FTCA). Id. at 554-56, 109 S.Ct. 2003. Finally, our own court has recently applied this canon in Koch Foods, Inc. v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 712 F.3d 476 (11th Cir. 2013). There we held that certain amendments to 49 U.S.C. § 31105 enacted by the Revision of Title 49, United States Code Annotated, “Transportation”, Pub. L. No. 103-272, 108 Stat. 745 (1994) were simply revisions and codifications, and thus did not change the pre-amendment scope of the law. Koch Foods, 712 F.3d at 485. We noted in Koch Foods that (much like § 2664(b) of the DRA amendments here) the recodification statute cautioned that the revisions and codifications were enacted “without substantive change,” and that the legislative history (like the legislative history of the DRA here) emphasized that the changes were not substantive. Id. The interpretive canon used in Koch Foods is the one we use in this case: “As the Supreme Court has observed, ‘it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect unless such intention is clearly expressed.’ ” Id. at 486 (quoting from Finley, 490 U.S. at 554, 109 S.Ct. 2003). We turn then to applying the recodification canon of statutory construction to our case. It is clear that the Office of the Law •Revision Counsel made an error in revising § 405(h) in 1976 (and again in 1982). Rather than include the full range of jurisdictional grants that were clearly forbidden under the prior law, the Law Revision Counsel (who it must be recalled has no authority to pass laws or alter the jurisdiction of federal district courts) mistakenly decided to update the cross-reference only to § 1346 and § 1331 of the new Title 28. We find no indication whatsoever, let alone a “clear indication,” in the Law Revision Counsel’s Codification note that the revisers intended or were suggesting an expansion of district court jurisdiction to review Medicare and Social Security claims, thereby reversing forty years of Congressional policy. On the contrary, the title of the note (“Codification”) and its contents indicate that the change was a mere codification (i. e. updating the cross-reference to “section 24 of the Judicial code” to its new location in Title 28 of the U.S. Code), and not a substantive change. One would expect that if the revisers intended the kind of fundamental change in policy and expansion of the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts that Bayou Shores suggests, it would merit some mention. See Muniz, 422 U.S. at 472, 95 S.Ct. 2178 (“It is not tenable to argue that the Revisers’ Note ..., although it explained in detail what words were deleted ... and added ..., simply did not bother to explain at all, much less in detail, that an admittedly substantial right was being conferred ...”). Moreover we do not find it significant, contrary to Bayou Shores’ suggestion, that Congress enacted the error into positive law when it passed the DRA in 1984. There is no evidence in the DRA that Congress “clearly expressed” an intention to reverse decades of Medicare and Social Security Act policy and give bankruptcy courts parallel jurisdiction with HHS to adjudicate Medicare claims (and parallel jurisdiction with the Social Security Administration to adjudicate Social Security claims). Again, if Congress intended such an important expansion of bankruptcy court jurisdiction to be enacted in a recodi-fication, one would expect to find some indication in the statute or legislative history stating as much. See Tidewater Oil, 409 U.S. at 162-63, 93 S.Ct. 408 (finding no indication in Reviser’s Notes or legislative history that Congress intended recodification to expand federal appellate court jurisdiction). Bayou Shores points to no such indication, nor are we able to find one. To the contrary, the statute itself tells us that the amendment in question is not to be interpreted as making any substantive change to the law: “none of such amendments shall be construed as changing or affecting any right, liability, status, or interpretation which existed (under the provisions of law involved) before that date.” See DRA, § 2664(b); see also Koch Foods, 712 F.3d at 485 (noting that the statute “expressly states that no substantive change is intended by the revisions to the language”). The legislative history of the bill similarly emphasizes that the amendments in § 2663 (including the amendment to § 405(h)) were not intended to be substantive. See H.R. Rep. No. 98-432, pt. 2, at 1663 (1984) (noting that the bill “makes certain corrections of spelling, punctuation, cross-references and other clerical amendments to the Social Security Act and related provisions in the Internal Revenue Code”). Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (the original sponsor of H.R. 3805, containing the “technical corrections” that were merged into the DRA) “emphasize[d] that this bill intends simply to correct technical errors and to better reflect the policies established by the Congress in enacting the original legislation.” 129 Cong. Rec. 23321, 23440 (1983). Per long standing Supreme Court precedent, we “will not ... infer[ ] that the legislature, in revising and consolidating [§ 405(h) ] intended to change their policy, unless such intention be clearly expressed.” See United States v. Ryder, 110 U.S. 729, 740, 4 S.Ct. 196, 28 L.Ed. 308 (1884). Here, we find no clear expression of any intent to change Congressional policy with respect to bankruptcy court jurisdiction over Medicare claims. To the contrary, the statute and legislative history detailed above expresses an intent not to substantively amend § 405(h). In reply, Bayou Shores attempts to downplay the mandate of § 2664(b) in the DRA by arguing that despite the statute’s command that the amendments are not to be interpreted as substantive, certain of the amendments were in fact substantive. See Appellant’s Reply Br. at 2-9. We are not persuaded by this argument. As an initial matter, Bayou Shores essentially asks us to ignore § 2664(b) and Congress’s command that the amendments are not substantive, which we are clearly not free to do. In Muniz the Supreme Court indicated that “[t]he nature of the revision process itself requires the cour