That's a shame. It is pretty widely agreed that Gordon's paper contained several basic errors both of fact and of reasoning, and is not actually very well respected. Clement and Katyal's paper is extremely shallow and barely touched the surface of what actually needs to be understood if one is to address the NBC issue. If these are the sources that this judge used, then his ruling is profoundly simplistic and unauthoritative.
This judge should have at least looked at this paper, which is probably the single most comprehensive work on the NBC subject to date: The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood
As a further question along this line, if the ICE declares that children born abroad are NBCs, then why is it that a missionary family that I know of in Romania, whose three children were born there, are currently unable to get visas for their children, since their children are not even considered as having US citizenship, much less natural born citizenship? Their children are having to be naturalised just to be able to visit their mother in a hospital here in the States.
I looked at the link you gave and noticed an error right off.
"The phrase is derived from English common law, and the Supreme Court requires examination of that law to ascertain the phrase’s definition."
No it isn't.
With such a glaring and serious error, should I bother to read further?