Answer:
Because the court did not review the events and laws that govern the process.
Explanation:
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.