Nonsense. Had there ever been the slightest doubt as to Minor's citizenship she never would have had standing to bring the case in the first place. The mere fact that MvH reached the USSC at all is compelling prima facie argument that Minor's citizenship was not being questioned and did not need to be "determined".
Waite in unequivocal terms makes clear that the only question before the Court, and the only question the court was determining, was whether the 14th amendment gave women the right to vote. No question of Minor's citizenship was being asked of the Court, nor was the Court answering any such question. So said Waite.
So her attempt at using the 14th Amendment was in error.
Sorry, where exactly did the Court say Minor was in error?
In Minor v Happersett, the court sought to answer this question, "Does being an American citizen in and of itself make one eligible to vote under the Constitution because of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?" To answer this they made two determinations:1. Given that only citizens could vote, was Minor a citizen? They construed the natural-born clause of Article 2, Section 1 to find that Minor was a natural-born citizen, that is, one born under the jurisdiction of the Constitution to parents who were both citizens. This established as a precedent the meaning of "natural born citizen." This is, indeed, a legally binding meaning of "natural born citizen."
2. Did Minor's status as a U.S. citizen give her, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, a right to vote? The court found, correctly, that it did not since suffrage was not specifically given to female citizens in the Constitution, but only to male citizens.