Final answer:
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court ruled that William Marbury and the other plaintiffs were entitled to their commissions, but the Court did not have the authority to directly order their delivery. Chief Justice Marshall established the principle of judicial review, empowering the Court to declare laws unconstitutional. While Marbury's lawsuit was the correct way to seek his appointment, the Supreme Court was not the proper place to obtain the relief he requested.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the question was whether the plaintiffs, including William Marbury, had the right to receive their commissions and if they could sue for their commissions in court. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that the plaintiffs were indeed entitled to their commissions. However, the Court also determined that it did not have the authority to directly order the delivery of the commissions because the provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Court that power, was found to be unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Marshall's solution to the case was to establish the principle of judicial review, which gave the Supreme Court the power to declare laws passed by Congress and signed by the president to be unconstitutional. While Marbury was entitled to his appointment and his lawsuit was the correct way to seek it, the Supreme Court was not the appropriate forum for Marbury to receive the relief he requested. The decision affirmed the idea of checks and balances within the government.