I have to generally agree with Groundhog and Loki insofar as the courts almost always uphold bar admission requirements as long as they are reasonable.
How far does this right go and want state interest is served from preventing a San Joaquin College Law Grad from taking the South Dakota Bar, which is a state so desperate for lawyers that it is paying for lawyers to move there.
strikes me as a potentially successful angle of attack.
Think about the scenario. A lawyer shows up and says "I passed the toughest bar exam in the country on my first try, passed the C&F, passed the South Dakota bar on my first try (assuming you could sit for the exam first), and can demonstrate that my alma mater follows the standard ABA law school curriculum. We use the same books, take the same tests, and have similarly qualified professors."
argument can South Dakota make for keeping that guy out? Library too small? Not enough financial aid staff? ABA accreditation is based on many non-academic factors, but if the grad could demonstrate that the academics were substantially the same...I dunno, maybe.
With an online or correspondence course South Dakota may be able to demonstrate that the education is somehow deficient. But San Joaquin has a higher pass rate than some CA ABA schools. Seems like the San Joaquin student would at least have shot at winning.