As has been pointed out, the decision calls the children's natural-born citizenship status a "relevant fact." Are you seriously arguing that a judge would call unsupported allegations by one side's attorney "relevant facts which have been placed before. . .this court"?
Nope
The argument placed before the judge was stated as including:
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
The Judge did not directly address the definition of "natural-born" citizenship. The judgement was concerning deportation.
With a little effort I can cite you the portion of the Naturalisation and Immigration Act of 1952 and subsequent revisions that actually concern the requirements of "natural-born" citizenship.
It is not what you try to state. It requires both parents be citizens, with undivided loyalties. Citizenship by birth is another matter, if you are born on U.S. soil your a citizen, but not a natural born citizen unless both parents were citizens at the time of birth.