And another 15 years after Wong Kim Ark, the Luria decision cited Minor and NOT Ark as a precedent on presidential eligibility in a unanimous decision.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
Minor is the FIRST case cited after referencing native citizens and eligibility for the office of President. There's no mention of Wong Kim Ark at all. Minor's definition of native citizenship was the same as for natural-born citizenship: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. This definition was affirmed in the Wong Kim Ark decision before Minor was cited specifically tied to Art II presidential eligibility meaning that 27 different Supreme Court justices affirmed this NBC definition. An ignorant statement by an Arizona superior court judge that gives no legal basis for its assumption fails upon actual inspection of Supreme Court decisions.
No court has ruled Obama to be ineligible on the basis of the holding in Minor (or any other precedential ruling).
As the judge in Arizona said in Allen v Obama: “Contrary to plaintiff’s claims, Minor v Happersett does not hold otherwise.”