The head of the Federal Administrative Dispute Court No. 11, Martin Cormickdealt a major setback to the government’s legal strategy by ordering immediate compliance with the law Updated teaching salary and student scholarship items. The judge issued a precautionary measure and explained the Decree 759/2025a tool that the executive branch had used to facilitate the execution of the University Financing Law (27,795)on the grounds that the President’s decision has fundamental characteristics of “Arbitrariness and blatant illegality.”
The solution came as part of a collective protection program funded by the federal government National Interuniversity Council (CIN) and “banked” by the constitutionalist. Pablo Manili. The central lawsuit questioned the validity of the executive maneuver that attempted to block legislation It had already been ratified by both houses of Congress after the President’s veto. The judge was of the opinion that a “obvious and undeniable breach of a legal obligation”, Confirmation of the position of universities in the face of the national state’s reluctance to transfer funds.
Authoritarians don’t like that
The practice of professional and critical journalism is a mainstay of democracy. That is why it bothers those who believe that they are the owners of the truth.
In his judgment, Cormick emphasized the exceptional nature of the measure. However, he justified his decision by saying that the government had tried to base the suspension of the law on a subordinate standard (Article 5 of Law 24,629 the financial administration) contradicts a constitutional mandate.
The judge strongly noted that the deterioration in teachers’ and students’ incomes was a problem “Imminent danger” That justifies the urgency. Cormick emphasized the loss of purchasing power “Continues to violate labor rights protected by international treaties.”and warned that this situation is not only putting a strain on the pockets of workers, but also jeopardizes the right to teaching and learning, direct impact on the result of educational work.
Rejecting the government’s budgetary argument, the ruling weighed the “public interest” and noted that granting the measure had budgetary implications “not very significant.” The judge cited estimates from the Congressional Budget Office that put the cost of the scheme at close to home 0.23% of GDPa figure who, in his opinion does not justify serious harm This means defunding the university system or repealing a law passed by a large legislative majority.
Ultimately, the judge ruled that the executive’s conduct “at least at this larval stage of the process in contradiction to the principle of separation of powers”. For this reason, it ordered the nation state to immediately comply with Articles 5 and 6 of the Financing Law. Reactivation of salary updates and scholarships. The precautionary measure applies until a final judgment will be made to the underlying problem.
“There are great fears”: The UBA denounces a 30 percent cut in its hospitals and rejects the repeal of the University Act
The fight over who has the last word
The ruling directly intervenes in the dispute between the president and Congress. The judge was clear: if the legislators have already ratified the law with two-thirds of the required votes, then to Javier Milei he has no choice but to fulfill it. The judge justified this by saying that the executive branch You can’t make up regulations or make bureaucratic excuses to stop a rule that has already completed the entire legal cycle. Once Congress insists, It is the law and that is it.
The Justice Department thereby refuted the government’s strategy, which argued that it could not pay because of the law It was unclear where the money came from.. For the judge, this is a formality that cannot take precedence over the constitution. In short, he said that the will of the majority of Congress is worth more than the administrative hurdles that the Casa Rosada is trying to erect to buy time.
In addition, the judge made it clear that paying these increases at this point will neither “destroy” the state nor is it irreversible, since the bills can always be balanced, especially among the Budget 2026 in conversation. What would be irreversible and harmful, he explained, is to continue to withdraw funding from universities.
T.C
About The Author
