At the time I am adding this, there are some good answers, but none that make the following statement completely clearly and upfront:
the 'laws' that science deals in are descriptive, not imperative
That is to say, a 'law of nature' is simply some observed regularity in natural phenomena. The observed regularity gets called a 'law' when it is of sufficiently wide occurrence or relevance. Asking whether the laws can change is no more and no less than asking whether regularities which have been observed up till now might not be quite as universal as was thought. The answer to that is yes. For example, it was thought for a long time that there was a law of conservation of mass. It turns out that was wrong, but not entirely wrong. Once we understand the relationship between mass and energy then the mass conservation 'law' is seen to be the form that conservation of energy takes in some circumstances.
In chemistry it was thought that the chemical elements were immutable, and then radioactivity was discovered which shows that there are processes which change one element into another.
It was also thought for a long time that if one connects three points with lines of minimal distance, then the triangle thus formed will have internal angles summing to 180 degrees (i.e. half a full rotation). Up until about 1917 this would have been said to be a very concrete and universal regularity of nature. It turns out it is not in fact true in general; it is just approximately true in ordinary circumstances.
Now it will be said that the question asked is not about human misunderstanding about laws of nature, but the laws themselves. Let's translate that. It is asking "can the regularities of nature themselves change?" But if they change then they were not regularities after all! Well not universal ones anyway. So if they were universal, describing phenomena equally well at one time as another, then by definition they cannot change.
Philosophers of science have of course given a good deal of thought to all this, and a very common conclusion is that one cannot give a good definition of "laws of nature" except the working definition "our best summary so far of the regularities which have been perceived". The whole of science is based on induction, which amounts to saying it is based on the reasonable conjecture that the universe will carry on being like it has been in the past, just changing over very long timescales. For example, the values of some of the parameters that physics normally treats as constant might possibly change over many billions of years. Experimental searches for such effects have been carried out, taking advantage of the precision of atomic clocks and the long time-scales offered by astronomy.
Just as we have no guarantee, when venturing out for a walk, that some calamity might not happen, such as a rock fall or an earthquake, equally we have no absolute guarantee that the fabric of the universe will not undergo some profound change which it has been building up to, all unknown to us. So what shall we do? Better accept the uncertainty and go out for that walk, and also carry on with all our other efforts to do something creative.