Opinion ID: 1658199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Irrebuttable Presumption.

Text: Gooch's final argument is that rule 13.2(5) creates an irrebuttable presumption, violative of the due process clause of the state constitution. Because the due process clauses of the Iowa and federal constitutions are similar, this court often looks to federal cases when interpreting the state due process clause. In Malmed v. Thornburgh, 621 F.2d 565 (3d Cir.1980), the court conducted an extensive examination of Supreme Court cases dealing with the irrebuttable presumption doctrine. The court emphasized the teaching of these cases; absent a suspect classification or infringement of a fundamental interest, articulation of a rational basis for the state action in question is sufficient to satisfy due process of law. Id. at 573-78. The court in Liberati also faced the irrebuttable presumption argument. That court noted that [i]n her other constitutional argument, Mrs. Liberati asserts that [the rule] created an irrebuttable presumption that a person cannot drive safely with telescopic lenses, and that the regulatory ban thus violates constitutional due process. Given what we have already said about the rational basis for the regulation, the due process challenge is without merit. Liberati, 472 A.2d at 745 (citing Malmed, 621 F.2d 565). Based on these standards and the rational basis justification already presented, rule 13.2(5) does not create an irrebuttable presumption. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. We find no basis for reversal. AFFIRMED.