[Lurkinanloomin]

According to FReeper cboldt, 100% of case law says that.

[Cboldt]

Just a few cases here. Wong Kim Ark is pretty dense. Rogers v. Bellei is parallel with the Cruz case, at the time of birth (set aside that Bellei was stripped of citizenship, and note that all 9 justices see Bellei as naturalized at birth). The blockquote is from Thomas v. Lynch, decided about half a year ago.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
Thomas v. Lynch - 5th Circuit - August 7, 2015 - 14-60297

"There are two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." Bustamante-Barrera v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 388, 394 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person `born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.'" Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 423-24 (1998) (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898)). "Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." Id.

[John Valentine]

Unfortunately for you and Cboldt, there is not a single case on point either of you can cite, only a slug of dicta, some intelligent and some not no intelligent and none of which ever related to anyone with secure citizenship acquired at birth according to statute and confirmed according to statute. EVERY case involved someone trying to avoid compliance with statute law. NO case has involved someone with secure, unambiguous, citizenship at birth, so none of the legal blathering is binding precedent.

[Leto]

Specifically what case law?

Please provide a citation.