Depends on the parents' citizenship or domicile status when one is born. In 48 states, one still must meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement as defined by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Record: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Citing flawed decisions proves nothing except ignorance or corruption on the part of the erroneously opining judges.
edge919 is correct in citing Luria v. United States as to Constitutional presidential eligibility in post 467. That sets a precedent that trumps any lower court ruling.
Just because someone posting on a blog says that judicial decisions are flawed doesn’t make it so. Under the American system of jurisprudence, any decision can be appealed. If appellate courts don’t reverse a lower court decision, it is not “flawed,” Those on the losing side of a lawsuit always claim flawed decisions or judicial corruption.
There have been seventy state or federal appellate rulings on ineligibility appeals, none has been reversed.