All judicial decesions have conerned "citizenship", not "natural born citizenship. At least one lower court ruling mentions "natural born", but only because the child in question was born of two *naturalized* citizens in the US. That case was about retention of citizenship, but she was "natural born" by anyone's definition.
That there have been no cases about "natural born" should not be a surprise, the only time it could arise is in a question of eligibility to the office of President. Otherwise, natural born or native born have the same rights. Naturalized have the same rights as well, but have lower limits on how long they have been citizens in order to become Congressmen and/or Senators. (Although in theory any native born citizen, which includes natural born, will automatically meet the limits too, by virtue of the age limitations).
The Wong Kim Ark case was about place of birth, (in the US to two subjects of the Chinese Emperor) under the 14th amendment, but doesn't concern itself, nor mention, "natural born".
Thanks.