President George Bush, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., and Mayor Lewis Billings -- public officials all.

Michael P. O'Connor, former girls basketball coach at Lehi High School, not so much.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled 5-0 on Tuesday that O'Connor was not a public official as a coach for purposes of defamation law; therefore, parents of team members are not shielded by the First Amendment from his $1.5 million lawsuit. O'Connor alleges that Lehi parents made comments that injured his reputation and career.

Normally, public officials may not collect damages for defamatory statements made about them unless the statements are made with "actual malice," a legal standard that involves reckless disregard of facts or deliberate lies.

The ruling arises from a dispute in 2003, when budding basketball star Michelle Harrison joined the LHS girls basketball team. She was expected to help continue the school's impressive record over two previous years -- which she did, including leading her team to the Region 8 championship for the 2003-04 season and being named MVP as a freshman.

But it also sparked outcry from parents. Accusations were made that O'Connor played favorites, which blossomed into 10 months of accusations of abuse of team members and mismanagement of funds. O'Connor was eventually removed as coach, then proceeded to sue the parents.

A 4th District Court judge ruled against O'Connor in a summary judgment, prompting the appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Tuesday's ruling in O'Connor v. Burningham means that the case will be sent back to district court within a month, where a judge will decide:

whether the statements of 31 parents could be deemed defamatory by a jury

whether the statements were made outside what the courts have viewed as conditional privileges of family members -- meaning that even if the statements were defamatory, they could be legally protected if they were made in defense of a child attending the high school

Michael W. Homer, who represents most of the defendants, maintains that his clients will prevail on both issues.

"This is clearly a free speech case," he said. "We have never believed that any of the statements were defamatory in any way."

If the district judge rules in O'Connor's favor, the case would go to trial. The lawsuit asks for $1.5 million dollars in damages.

"At least we know that you can't just go in and say whatever you want about somebody," O'Connor said Tuesday. He now coaches golf and teaches at LHS. "This isn't unfamiliar territory of parents complaining about a coach, teacher or director, them getting fired and not understanding why."

It's that territory that makes Tuesday's ruling significant in Utah. Case law across the country is split evenly on whether coaches and teachers can be considered public officials, and thus subject to harsher public criticism without legal recourse for defamation.

"The public official roster is comprised exclusively of individuals in whom the authority to make policy affecting life, liberty, or property has been vested," the state Supreme Court ruled. "Likewise, only those issues that have such bearing on civil life as to fairly touch on matters that in the eyes of the law concern life, liberty, or property may be traced to the actions of a public official. So viewed, high school athletics can claim no 'apparent importance.' "

Short of calling the case a landmark decision, First Amendment attorney Jeff Hunt, who is not involved in the case, said that the ruling appears to make it easier for teachers and coaches to prevail in defamation cases.

"It sends a message to teachers and coaches: You can still protect your reputations," he said.

O'Connor's attorney, Joseph Rust, said they plan to do just that. If the judge rules that the parents' statements could be defamatory and that they don't have conditional protection under the law, then he expects the case to go to trial. If the judge says the parents' comments were not defamatory, O'Connor could appeal again to the state Supreme Court.

After four years of legal proceedings, both sides know there's still plenty of time left on the clock.

"We knew that the system works that way," said O'Connor. "But you have to trust the system and that the right things happen. You have to be patient."

Another nuance in the case was raised on Tuesday, which the Supreme Court did not address. While the court ruled that O'Connor was not a public official, the door was left open that perhaps he was a "public figure."

Both designations -- "official" and "figure" -- set a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to recover damages for defamation. The public has wide latitude to comment in either case, so long as comments are not made with actual malice.

Under the law, a person may be deemed a "public figure" when he "has either (1) attained special prominence in the affairs of society and thus assumes a public figure role voluntarily, or (2) thrust himself or herself to the forefront of public controversies in order to affect the outcome of those controversies."

As a coach who voluntarily participated in public events, O'Connor could be considered a public figure even though he might not have been acting as a public official.

"That's an open question because the court doesn't address the public figure status in the opinion," said Hunt, the First Amendment lawyer. "I would certainly think that's an issue the defendants could raise back in the trial court."

Homer, the defendants' attorney, said simply: "I've got to think that one through."

Harrison, the basketball player at the center of the controversy, transferred to Mountain View High School in Orem before her junior year. She recently finished her first season at Stanford, one of the top women's basketball programs in the country, the Associated Press reported.