Which aspect is NOT considered rationally related to Bar admission requirements?

The aspect that is not considered rationally related to Bar admission requirements is U.S. citizenship. While many jurisdictions require citizenship as part of the qualifications for admission, this requirement has been scrutinized for its rational connection to the practice of law. The argument against requiring citizenship is based on the premise that the ability to practice law and provide legal services does not necessarily depend on one's citizenship status but rather on their competency and ethical qualifications.

On the other hand, the other aspects—graduating from an ABA-accredited law school, taking an oath to uphold the constitution, and residency in the state—are more directly linked to a candidate’s qualifications and readiness to practice law. Graduation from an ABA-accredited law school ensures that the individual has received a standardized legal education. Taking an oath to uphold the constitution is a fundamental aspect of the legal profession and reflects a commitment to the principles and responsibilities of practicing law. Residency in the state is frequently required to ensure that attorneys are familiar with the local laws and legal culture, which supports effective representation of clients in that jurisdiction.

Thus, the rationale against citizenship as a criterion for Bar admission stems from its lack of relevance to the essential qualifications needed for legal practice, thereby making it the correct choice relative to the others.