A precedent is only set when the court has actually ruled. That’s why we need the court to rule - regardless of which way we think they should rule. If a lower court had ruled on the issue and SCOTUS refused to hear the case then the lower court’s ruling would stand, but what we’ve got here is every court refusing to issue a ruling. So there is no precedent.
The one case that was similar was Chester Arthur, but he hid all his documentation until about 2 years ago when it was unearthed showing that his father did not naturalize until after Chester was born. And there were no court decisions in that instance.
All we’re asking for is a decision. I can’t understand why that seems so stupid for people like Levin. Until there is a decision there is no precedent and nothing is settled.
I’m not sure you’re correct (because I’m not a legal expert) but we’ll see, eventually, I suspect.