I did not. Simply stated a fact. The judge DID NOT call the children natural-born citizens. The lawyer "stated" what he perceived as the relevant facts. He did so incorrectly. The judge did not "rule" on the nature of "natural-born" U.S. citizenship. The judge's ruling was about "deportation". FACT.
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"?