Nope.
The case at the link did not say the court found that the children were natural-born citizens. It stated that the relevant facts “presented” to the court were (see below). Those are the facts as described by the attorney of the petitioner, not determined by the court. The court ruled on other matter.
“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 relevant facts placed before the court” sure sounds to me like the court agrees those are the relevant facts. And the second case supports that.