Wrong. The court acknowledged there is a difference of opinion on what an NBC is, then specifically said the plaintiff was an NBC under any definition, so they didn’t need to rule as to which is correct. That is not a precedent.
Flat out lie. The court had no doubt about who were the natural born Citizens.
1. "...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." First, the Court states that these persons are "citizens". But then it makes a second statement about this class:
2. "These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." This class of citizens are part of a class defined as "natural-born citizens'. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.
What the court doubted was whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were "citizens", but this was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor's did not.