Authorizers must decide whether a proposed school should be allowed to open and whether it should be required to close. To enable authorizers to serve as quality gatekeepers for the sector, state policy must give authorizers clear power to deny low-quality charter school applications and to close charter schools that fail to meet expectations. At the same time, when the authorizer decides against a school, a well-structured appeals process enhances fairness for charter school applicants and schools and helps hold authorizers accountable for making sound, merit-based decisions. In the life cycle of a charter school, there are three common circumstances that can trigger an appeal: (1) Rejected application for a new charter school; (2) Rejected application for charter school renewal; and (3) Revocations. Whatever the circumstances of appeal, one important consideration is whether the appeal is procedural (claiming that the authorizer did not follow proper process) or substantive (claiming that the decision-making body made a bad decision on the merits). A procedural appeal might argue, for example, that an authorizer violated its own renewal procedures by failing even to read a school's renewal application, while a substantive appeal could argue that the authorizer failed to appreciate all the merits of the renewal application. Whatever the administrative rules are regarding charter school appeals in a particular location, those threatened with the closure of a charter school may also seek to have a court weigh in on whether the process is being carried out lawfully, and perhaps seek an injunction halting the process at least temporarily. This guide discusses the following: (1) Background on Charter School Appeals; (2) Key Considerations for Policymakers in Structuring Effective Charter Appeals Processes; (3) Recommendations and Best Practices for State Policy on Charter School Appeals; and (4) Resources and Further Analysis. (Contains 4 endnotes and 6 resources.)