In the case of Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Georgia sold large tracts of land to speculators in 1795. A few years later, the Georgia legislature voided the sale in response to public outcry that the original agreement was conducted with bribes. In the intervening period, Robert Fletcher, a land speculator, had purchased a tract of land from John Peck, who had acquired the land from the original agreement in 1795. Fletcher took Peck to court, arguing that he had no right to sell the land and that the sale was a breach of contract. The Court's decision favored Peck based on the argument that bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. Why is the Supreme Court's decision in the scenario one that reflects judicial restraint

As you can see in the question above, Fletcher bought land from Peck before legislation that prohibited the sale of land to speculators was enforced. This means that he made this purchase when this practice was still legal, although there was a clamor for this activity to end. However, Fletcher decided to go to the federal supreme court stating that the purchase was illegal. However, the Court stated that this case was an ex post facto law, which they considered invalid, unconstitutional. This is a type of law with retroactive effects, where its effects work on the facts that happened before its ratification. Thus, the court refused to make a judicial review of these facts, promoting an example of judicial restraint.