The Crescent City Slaughterhouse--its monopoly was challenged
 in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases

Note that there are several possible positions that could be taken with respect to the incorporation debate.  First, one could argue that the Fourteenth Amendment (either through the P & I Clause or the Due Process Clause) made the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights enforceable against the states and no more.  This was the view argued for by Justice Black.  Second, one could argue that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are essentially irrelevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that violations of the Due Process Clause are to be determined by a natural-law-like tests such as "Does the state's action shock the conscience?" or "Is the state's action inconsistent with our concept of ordered liberty"? This is the "No Incorporation" Theory advanced by Justice Frankfurter, among others.  Third, one could take a position such as Justice White did in Duncan that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates certain fundamental provisions, but not other non-fundamental provisions.  This view is often called the "Selective Incorporation" Theory.  Finally, one could adopt either a "Selective Incorporation Plus" view or a "Total Incorporation Plus" (see Justice Murphy's view in Adamson, for example) view.  These views hold that in addition to incorporating some or all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits certain other fundamental rights from being abridged by the states.

More recently, the Court considered the incorporation question in the 2010 case of McDonald v Chicago, involving a challenge to Chicago's tough gun control legislation.  Just two years earlier, the Court had ruled in a case challenging a District of Columbia gun control regulation that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms.  In McDonald, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Court held that the 2nd Amendment right was thought by ratifiers of the 14the Amendment "among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty" and is therefore now a right fully enforceable against the states.  Justice Thomas, concurring, argued that the better vehicle for incorporation, one truer to the original understanding of the 14th Amendment, was the Privileges and Immunities Clause.  Dissenters argued that the right to bear arms, "unlike other forms of substantive liberty,...often put others' lives at risk" and was therefore not the sort of liberty the 14th Amendment protected against state enforcement.

In 2019, The Court concluded, in Timbs v Indiana, that the Excessive Fines provision of the 8th Amendment was incorporated through the 14th Amendment, and thus applicable to the states.  The following year, in Ramos v Louisiana, the Court said the same thing about the "unanimous verdict" requirement of the 6th Amendment, previously found (as a result of a couple of 5 to 4 split decisions, with one justice finding states not to be required to have unanimous verdicts, but reaching a different conclusion for the federal government) to be applicable to the federal government, but not the states.