IIRC, those cases were dismissed, true, but because of a lack of standing of the plaintiff or some other procedural defect. This conveniently enabled those courts to dodge the natural born citizen issue because they didn't have to reach it.
Furthermore, in so far as I recall, the SCOTUS has never in its history had a case where the definition of "natural born citizen" in Article II of the United States Constitution was dispositive. Only in Minor v. Happersett did the SCOTUS define "natural born citizen" (and did so in accordance with Vattel) but that case did not concern eligibility for the presidency.
Ankeny: "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."
Tisdale: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."
I knew what Ankeny said from reading it before, and just looked up Tisdale. I don't have time to research the others. But that should be enough to show that courts have, in fact, ruled on the NBC issue.
Only in Minor v. Happersett did the SCOTUS define "natural born citizen"
They didn't actually "define" the term, except insofar as "there is no doubt that tigers are cats" is the definition of "cat."
Allen v Obama: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Minor v Happersett does not hold otherwise.”