Why does the court have to “reaffirm” a decision? Minor v Happersett is the settled law of the land as to what is an NBC. Done.
Minor v Happersett established that the lady in question was indeed a natural born citizen because she was born in the U.S. of American citizens. Let me ask you this. If slaves were imported into this country and never became naturalized citizens, how then can their offspring be citizens?
First, this suit would have to be decided in a lower court. For the federal case, it would be a district court.
The question is whether the lower court would consider Minor v. Happersett to be the "settled law". If the lower court doesn't, the only recourse is to appeal to the US Circuit Court, and then the Supreme Court.
Misinterpretations of US v. Miller persisted as "settled law" for decades, and the Supreme Court avoided the contested issue for all that time. They could do the same now, and there is nothing anyone could do.
Minor v Happersett is the settled law of the land as to what is an NBC. Done.
Curiously, that is the case that was scrubbed from the Justica site. Anything that referenced the precedent setting case for NBC was scrubbed. Odd, isn’t it?
I'm sure we agree on what an NBC is, as the framers understood it when they wrote the Constitution. However, Minor v. Happersett is not a great case with which to make our point, since the SCOTUS merely discussed NBCs as an aside. Minor v. Happersett was not a case concerning presidential eligibility.