It doesn't matter whether they cited it in support of their claim or not. "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" was never intended to exclude domiciled aliens. Period.
That they misused the phrase it in support of their denial of citizenship to children of domiciled aliens really doesn't matter in terms of what it meant.
The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling actually requires more than simply residence. It requires the parents to have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.
Arguably. Arguably, it didn't. It's arguable either way.
There actually is no law that supports your assertion.
There may not be any STATUTE that supports my assertion, but the rule of citizenship which has always applied supports it. The very definition of "natural born citizen" supports it.
Actually, that's not true. Birthright citizenship wasn't extended to the children of some aliens until the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision. And even then it was only extended to those whose parents had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth