That’s always a possibility, but there have been lots of interevening years and Supreme Court ideological compositions to reverse U.S. v Wong Kim Ark.
According to Westlaw (one of the primary online legal research services for lawyers and legal professionals. Information resources on Westlaw include more than 40,000 databases of case law, state and federal statutes, administrative codes, newspaper and magazine articles, public records, law journals, law reviews, treatises, legal forms and other information resources.), the Wong holding has been cited more than a thousand times in subsequent rulings.
"Wong" itself isn't necessarily wrong. It depends on how you apply it. The court ruled that the 14th amendment granted Wong citizenship, and that is not an irrational claim under the 14th amendment. Wong's parents were permanent residents (Denizens) when he was born, and he grew up in the United States.
He was not an "Anchor Baby". His parents may very well have chosen to naturalize and remain here, but for the fact that was prohibited by treaty.
Where "Wong" goes wrong is when people try to apply it outside of the very narrow scope that applied specifically to Wong. ~Permanent resident parents and born in the country. They were here legally, (legal denizens) and for long enough for him to grow to manhood.
Unfortunately courts subsequently decreed "anchor babies are citizens!" which is a stretch too far for "Wong", but misapplied precedent is hard to correct.