There is no SCOTUS case law because ther has never been a case like this in that court. There are hundreds of quo warranto cases that are not all that substantially different from this one.
If you were to read the DoJ argument against the use of quo warranto in this instance, you would see they cited just one case that really has nothing to do with the facts of this case. All it did was cite that jurisdiction for quo warranto within the District of Columbia lies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In other words, the DoJ has no argument that quo warranto is not appropriate.
There is no SCOTUS case law because ther has never been a case like this in that court.
+++++++++++++++
I agree with you that there is no specific ruling by the SCOTUS re: the NBC definition of Article II of the US Constitution.
However, the SCOTUS have gone right up to the edge of the issue a number of times and clarified that those born in the US to US citizens are most surely NBC. See Minor v. Happersett just below: “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
The dissent argued that the meaning of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language found in 14th Amendment was the same as that found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” On the meaning of “natural born citizen,” the dissent also cited the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations” which may have influenced the drafters of the original constitution:[19] “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”[20] The dissenters also noted that:
it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.