And yet in upholding the law of citizenship as set forth by the immigration act a concurring opinion by Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas proposed that the Supreme Court simply did not have the power of "conferral of citizenship on a basis other than that prescribed by Congress".
This case was about something beside NBC. This was a child born out of wedlock to a foreign woman and a US man in a foreign country. According to the law the child didn't meet the citizen at birth requirement.
The nature of the case is not pertinent. What is pertinent is the discussion about NBC. They specifically had an exchange about the requirements for Presidency.
Justice Scalia has indicated now in TWO separate instances that he leans toward a requirement of born on US soil.
That doesn’t mean that is how he would rule.