A lot. It simply shows this judge was taking considerations from a variety of sources, not just from the opinion of the majority. His rejection of the majority decision may be justified upon several things that are neither, mentioned, implied, nor presumed from that opinion.
The District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus based on WKA's being a citizen. Since neither of his parents were citizens, the only thing that would make him a citizen was that he was born in the United States.
By virtue of the 14th amendment which according to the majority, does NOT say who shall be natural born citizens.
If the government's appeal expressed concern that WKA was eligible for the presidency, that means they recognized that that was the implication of the District Court's decision.
It was based on a citation of a separate case mentioned in the District Court opinion. The appeal proposed a question based on a speculative outcome. It's not based on a holding of the District Court's decision. It didn't declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen; it cited a separate case that did declare a child of Chinese subjects to be natural-born. That's not a binding precedent, especially when the 9-0 decision in Minor contradicts that possibility.
So it doesn't matter whether Fuller was addressing that decision or the Supreme Court's decision. Either way, he saw that upholding the District Court's decision meant WKA was eligible.
The problem is that there is NOTHING in the majority opinion that says this nor implies it. All we have is a question in the appeal and an answer in the dissent. Neither the appeal nor the dissent provide the legal precedent for defining NBC, especially when the majority opinion affirms the one, true and exclusive definition: all children born in the country to citizen parents.
Apparently both the district attorney and Justice Fuller thought there was something that implied it, or they wouldn't have brought it up.
By virtue of the 14th amendment which according to the majority, does NOT say who shall be natural born citizens.
And it doesn't who who shan't be, either.
It's pretty simple: WKA was denied re-entry to the US on the grounds that he wasn't a citizen, despite being born here. He said, "Am too," and the District Court agreed. The government appealed, and as part of it said "Really? You want to let someone like this be president?" The Supreme Court upheld the District Court. It's true that they didn't answer the government's question explicitly, but the dissenter said "I can't believe you're going to let someone like this be president." Clearly, both the government lawyer and Justice Fuller saw that that's what the WKA decision meant.
I'm really starting to think you can't be serious about this--that this is some kind of elaborate troll. You really expect us to believe that someone can't have written "Do you really mean that the child of some Malay passing through can be president, just because he was born here?" in response to a decision unless "Malay" was mentioned in the decision? That's absurd on its face.