Schools' ability to manage student misbehavior rests largely on students' perceptions of the discipline system and authority. According to the procedural justice perspective, when schools use discipline practices students perceive as unfair, they fail to see authority as legitimate, making them less likely to comply with rules and demand. Youth Court, a peer adjudication program, has been implemented in schools as an alternative to punitive policies. While effective, there is no current research that examines if Youth Court creates procedural justice and legitimate authority. Using qualitative data from three urban schools, this study investigates the fairness of Youth Court procedures within a procedural justice framework, as well as perceptions of primary discipline practices and authority. Findings revealed that each school still largely uses punitive policies that create procedural unfairness and undermine legitimate authority. Additionally, findings indicate Youth Court utilizes practices that allow for procedural justice that foster legitimate authority.