“Qwest relies heavily upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) to argue that Qwest ‘suffered actual injury sufficient to confer standing—and certainly a sufficient likelihood of economic injury.’ Qwest’s reliance upon Clinton is misplaced, however, because Clinton is factually distinguishable.
“Clinton stands for the proposition that a party has standing to challenge the legality of a government action (in Clinton, a presidential line item veto) where that action revives ‘a substantial contingent liability [which] immediately and directly affects the borrowing power, financial strength, and fiscal planning of the potential obligor’ (in Clinton, a tax liability in excess of two billion dollars)….Qwest’s alleged injury differs from those of the plaintiffs’ in Clinton in one critical respect: while the First Report and Order may have imposed upon Qwest a contingent liability when the Commission issued the order in 1996, any such liability cannot be contingent today.”
J. Kelly, Qwest Communications, International, Inc. v. F.C.C., 240 F.3d 886, 891-892 (10th Cir. 2001).