Judge Martín Cormick, head of the Federal Administrative Court No. 11, granted a collective amparo filed by the National Interuniversity Council and other entities, halted the official decree that suspended the university funding law (despite the insistence of both chambers of Congress), and ordered the government of Javier Milei to immediately comply with updating the allocations for paying teacher salaries and student scholarships, as stipulated in the Law on University Education Funding and Teacher Salary Recomposition (Law 27.795).
In his ruling, he considered that Decree 759/2025, which suspended its enforcement, exhibits features of «arbitrariness and manifest illegality».
In this way, the ruling was innovative, as the sectors that presented the collective amparo requested «the order for immediate compliance», in addition to considering that the DNU does not meet the condition of being «an exceptional decision because it alters the factual and legal situation existing at the time of its issuance and, consequently, constitutes a favorable anticipation of jurisdiction with respect to a final ruling».
Along these lines, he considered it proven the «clear and incontestable non-observance of a legal duty, concrete and specific, incumbent on the defendant» and that «the legislative insistence would not admit, in the premature analysis that can be carried out provisionally, any other solution than the effective application of the law in question».
Similarly, the judge pointed out that the Milei government based the suspension of the law on a norm of lower hierarchy - Article 5 of Law 24.629 - in the face of an express constitutional mandate.
Regarding the strictly legal-labor aspect, the magistrate gave special place in his ruling to the deterioration of the income of the affected group, by stating that this loss of purchasing power «continues to this day, violating labor rights protected by International Human Rights Treaties and the National Constitution», highlighting in addition that Cormick that «the non-granting of the measure would imply a 'not very significant' budgetary saving», and cited estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, which place the fiscal impact of the norm at 0.23% of GDP.
Now, the new judicial ruling in favor of the collective precautionary measure will be in effect until the final sentence is issued.
