What Donofrio is saying is that they took out the title of the case so that those who would search for references to Minor v Happersett would not be able to see the different places where it was used as precedent in other cases. Donofrio has recently said that the two-citizen-parent definition for “natural born citizen” is established precedent, and cases that cited Minor v Happersett as precedent on questions of citizenship would support that.
What Donofrio is saying now is that back in early 2008 somebody realized that the Minor v Happersett references would prove that there is already an NBC definition established as precedent so they wanted to make it as difficult as possible for people to find out when Minor v Happersett was cited as precedent. So they had Justia take out that title so it wouldn’t show up in a search.
Fair enough, I can see that argument. It doesn't address why they didn't expunge the references from the other law archives, like FindLaw. And it ignores the fact that the citation in Boyd does not quote the definition of NBC from Minor, so someone looking for that wouldn't have found Boyd anyway. And anyone looking for cases dealing with citizenship and eligibility would have found their way to Boyd and then, via the link, to Minor. The fact that this alleged deletion would have had such a negligible effect still makes me doubt it was an intentional attempt to scrub info, but I know you're a collector of anomalies, so I can see why this appeals to you.