The Great Divide in metaphysical debates about laws of nature is between Humeans who think that laws merely describe the distribution of matter and non-Humeans (primitivists) who think that laws govern it. What is the difference? In any case, the laws of nature describe how the universe works, that is, its fundamental properties. The laws of nature are, after all, not some "adjustment" performed from the outside, but only a property of the very structure of the physical world.
Primitivists believe that the law is the cause of the matter distribution, but if the law only describe the matter distribution, Humeans believe, it's the effect of matter distribution. Believing in each has its own consequences. In general, theories that are based on primitivism result into incident models, which the law predicts the future distribution, for example classical mechanics or Einstein relativity, while the Humeans theories result into consecutive models, where the law only explain the experiment which has already been taken, for example quantum mechanics or statistical physics. People who want the law to predict the future become primitivists and the ones who want to explain things and learn from the past become Humeanist.
By the way I'm not a native English speaker, feel free to edit my answer to make it more accurate.