Final answer:
William Marbury's complaint was that his commission as a Justice of the Peace was not delivered to him. The complaint arose from last-minute appointments made by President John Adams that were never fully finalized. The Supreme Court ruled in Marbury v. Madison that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but the part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granting the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus was unconstitutional.
Step-by-step explanation:
William Marbury's complaint was that his commission as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia was not delivered to him. This complaint arose because several government posts, including Marbury's, were appointed by outgoing President John Adams in the last days of his presidency. However, these appointments were never fully finalized. Marbury and other disgruntled appointees sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court, invoking an act of Congress.
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled in Marbury v. Madison that Marbury was entitled to his commission and that Secretary of State James Madison had broken the law by not delivering it. However, the Court also ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional because it expanded the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what was allowed in Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, Marbury's suit could not be heard by the Supreme Court, establishing the principle of judicial review.