The US Supreme Court decided Setser v. United States today, holding that a federal court has discretion to order that a new federal sentence run consecutively to an anticipated state sentence revoking probation for an earlier state conviction.

The case has an interesting SCOTUS practice twist.  The government declined to defend the lower court's judgment, contending that concurrent-vs.-consecutive was the Bureau of Prison's decision, not the judge's.  The Court appointed an amicus to argue in support of the judgment below, Evan Young of Baker and Botts.

Normally, the appointed amicus in this situation gets a complementary footnote and a unanimous reversal.  This time he actually won.  That's probably happened before, but I don't recall when.