The highest court rejected the extraordinary appeal of the Executive and left firm the precautionary measure that orders the application of the University Financing Law. The Government had already closed a salary agreement with rectors and unions, so the immediate economic impact is limited. But the ruling says something else: the Court put an institutional limit on the veto and freezing strategy that the ruling party used to neutralize what Congress approved twice.
The failure was technical. The result was political.
This Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected the proposals of the Executive Branch in the case linked to the University Financing Law and left firm the precautionary measure that obliges the State to apply articles 5 and 6 of Law 27,795. The resolution, signed by Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Ricardo Lorenzetti, closes a judicial dispute that began when the Executive tried to neutralize by decree what Congress had voted.
The course of the case is eloquent. The Government had vetoed the law. Congress insisted on its sanction. Once enacted, the Executive subordinated its application to the determination of financing sources. Decree 759/2025 was supported by this maneuver: the State conditioned the application of the law on the definition of a specific source of financing, which was questioned through a collective protection promoted by the National Interuniversity Council and different national universities. The Federal Administrative Litigation Chamber ordered compliance with it as a precautionary measure. The Government appealed. The Court rejected that appeal.
The ruling does not have immediate concrete economic effects because this year’s increase was already agreed on equally. On June 10, the Executive Branch signed an act in which it committed to transferring funds for an increase in the wage bill of 24.33%, a 20% increase in operating expenses and an expansion of the amounts for university hospitals up to 50,000 million pesos. The numbers were agreed upon before the Court ruled.
But reducing the ruling to its immediate salary impact would be a misreading. What the Court did was institutionally validate the law that the Government tried to void. The ruling represents an endorsement of the legislation and Parliament. And that, in the context of a government that made the veto and resistance to legislative majorities a management tool, is not a minor detail.
From the university sector they read it like this. The vice chancellor of the UBA, Emiliano Yacobitti, highlighted that the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Executive Branch must comply with the law and thanked society for never giving up the defense of the public university. Emiliano Cagnaci, general secretary of the UBA Teachers Association (Aduba), pointed out that from this precautionary measure, salaries that had been delayed from previous years should be updated. That is the key that the June 10 agreement still does not resolve: the law speaks of salary recovery from December 2023, while what was agreed covers a more limited stretch.
There remain, then, several open questions. The file continues in the first instance, where Judge Cormick has to decide whether the decree that suspends the law is constitutional or not. The Government trusts that the political agreement will make the claim abstract. The study houses, however, were not willing to withdraw the lawsuit.
Can a salary agreement legally seal what the law requires to be fulfilled in broader terms? This tension between what is negotiated and what is legislated is the core of the conflict that remains unresolved. The Court’s ruling does not close the case: it pushes it towards the instance where there is still room for the Government to try to turn what was agreed into the ceiling and not the floor.
From Live digital multimedia communication and websites of key cities in Argentina and the world; We disseminate and promote authors and other indistinct means of communication. We also generate our own journalistic creations and investigations for the service of readers.
We suggest reading the source and expanding with the link above to access the origin of the note.
