The Supreme Court's decision in the 1972 Walker case illustrated four issues: (1) the anomalous link of the protection purpose and the punishment effect of the Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) classification; (2) the court's uncritical acceptance of differences between adults and children; (3) court's deference to State juvenile authorities; and (4) the State's heavy role in enforcing family discipline. Courts' PINS jurisdiction can produce deprivation of liberty, injury to reputation, and loss of privacy and decisionmaking power. Moreover, it denies family autonomy and the child's right to liberty within the family. Although children are different from adults in most situations, the Supreme Court's criteria for suspect classifications indicate that an age-based classification discriminating against those under 16 should be considered suspect. In addition, parents' alignment with the State in most PINS cases further justifies courts' strict scrutiny regarding equal protection. Moreover the State's justification for discrimination against juveniles in PINS cases is not compelling. Gunther has proposed a modification of the traditional two-tier system for determining equal protection. Justice Marshall has proposed a sliding scale system which would promote flexibility by considering the classification, the right affected, and the State's justification for discrimination. Policy considerations reinforce the constitutional conclusion against PINS. It is concluded that the law should let the family retain its status and power over children except where a real possibility of harm exists. Footnotes are included.