It is not in dicta. It is part of the Holding.
This is a clarification to my last post to you:
In 1996, the US Supreme Courts majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, then that reason is not simply dictum.
Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an independent ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners claim that it was simply a dictum.
The Minor Courts construction of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendments citizenship clause.
Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite POTUS eligibility not being an issue. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.
************************************************************************
The above is from Leo Donofrios online site.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/