The Supreme Court of the United States has had eight opportunities to revisit Wong Kim Ark with specific regard to Barack Obama and natural born citizenship. They have chosen to reject all eight appeals of lower court decisions, in Berg v Obama, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Beverly v FEC, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
The only courts that I know of to address the issue directly with regard to Obama are in Indiana, a lower (Marion County) court and the Indiana Court of Appeals. In its dismissal of a lawsuit which would have invalidated Obama’s Indiana Electoral votes on the grounds that both his parents were not US citizens and he is therefore ineligible, the Indiana Court of Appeals said: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person ‘born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject’ at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those ‘born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.’—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
I’m not surprised court cases have been unsuccessful as they are not the correct venue to seek a usurper’s removal. The Law is a tricky field and when you’re going after someone who has committed fraud, like Obama, it is doubly hard when he is in a supreme position of power.
Per the U.S. Constitution, only the Congress has the power to remove a President from office. Congress decades ago delegated the power to remove a usurper or ineligible President, via Quo Warranto, to the District Court of Washington, D.C.