Excessive Fines Clause Incorporated (Explicitly)

Perhaps because they already did in dicta (if that; McDonald v. Chicago however ignored the case), the Supreme Court thought it obvious that the Excessive Fine Clause should be incorporated, doing so in an opinion under ten pages. The opinion is being cited as important given it included within its ambit civil asset forfeitures, but that too has been cited in the past. This was noted in the opinion to cite how weak the state's claim was in trying to argue they don't count. RBG wrote the opinion and seems to be doing well. But, maybe so. Also, not sure seizure of his land rover was that excessive for use for a felony. Borderline. Yes, it is 4x (but is that too much?) the criminal penalty, but the usage seems to be notable.

Also: What's left? Third Amendment (Griswold dicta, never pops up, but bet it can someday), grand jury (many states don't use them; doubtful), unanimous jury trials (one state left; quite possible, cited as a joker in opinion) and Seventh Amendment (civil trials; also broad reach).

Update: And, does it matter if we use the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Depends on how limiting it turns out to be. Justice Gorsuch already restrained the feds regarding immigrants in part by concerns about vagueness. Some limits on power will protect liberty of non-citizens. Also, including by originalist arguments, equal protection concerns should apply to them, including as a matter of due process. If this sounds substantive, it shows sneering at "substantive due process" is you know a bit stupid. Selective application likely.