Your question could benefit from (i) a distinction between prescriptive vs descriptive laws, and (ii) a distinction between laws of nature per se (which are just causal powers inherent in the universe) vs scientific laws (i.e the formulations or articulations of laws of nature which are contrived by scientists and are fallible attempts to state or approximate the laws of nature). Things may get confusing in theology when descriptive laws or laws of nature are regarded as willed by God and therefore, in a sense, prescribed by God; as such, however, they still aren't the sort of prescriptive laws that it is possible to disobey.
https://www.quora.com/Are-the-laws-of-nature-descriptive-or-prescriptive (by Tim O'Donnell)
In my humble opinion, the term universal law is semantically misleading. I would argue that in the actual sense of the word, we probably have no knowledge of universal laws.
I have two premises for my argument:
1. We know very little about the universe or we do not have any comprehensive knowledge of the universe. We have barely explored the North Pole, ...not to talk of a sextillion stars, planets, and solar systems or even the possibility of alternative universes.
2. The so-called universal laws, both in science and philosophy, are probabilistic vis-a-vis the entire physical universe.
An example of a universal law in moral philosophy is Kant's categorical imperative. I guess, I don't have to give a lecture on that here, but it suffices to say that the categorical imperative is similar to the golden rule. Its validity rests on the apriori nature of the maxim, namely, necessity and universality. However, the categorical imperative is a general moral principle predicated on Kant's assumption that the Western culture and values embody some universally incontrovertible truths that all humans across cultures must follow in order to be considered rational. The first maxim of the universal law formula says: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Someone who cheats on their spouse may not care if this kind of cheating becomes a universal law. Does the rest of the universe care less? Kant's categorical imperative may have some "earthly" appeal, but definitely not a universal one.
Another example of a universal law is Newton's gravitational law, which states that every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and conversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
Newton's discovery was a huge breakthrough in physics and has led to great innovations and inventions in engineering, especially mechanical engineering. But to say that the law will apply to objects 12 trillion light years from the Earth is an exercise in inductive reasoning, rather than deduction.