Yeah, sure does. But the split was over the constitutionality of residency limits in order to maintain the status of US citizenship. There was no split on the question of whether citizenship was acquired solely by statute. All 9 found that the appellant was naturalized, even though his citizenship attached at birth by operation of the statute, and even though appellant had not gone through a naturalization process.
You are correct.
I found it interesting that the split on the constitutional question was so marked.
The law is not an exact science.