In the case of Monroe Ace Setser v. United States, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal judges have discretion to order a federal sentence served consecutively with an anticipated state sentence for unrelated crimes. The petitioner, Setser was convicted on both state and federal drug charges at different times but arising from the same conduct. Before his sentencing in federal court, he had been sentenced by a Texas court to five years' imprisonment on one of his state convictions but not yet sentenced on another charge pending in Texas courts. The Federal District Judge ordered that Setser's 151-month federal sentence be served concurrently with the already-imposed Texas sentence but consecutively with any sentence imposed for his other pending charge in Texas courts which later resulted into ten-year imprisonment term by State judge running concurrently with previously imposed five-year term. Setser appealed arguing that only Bureau of Prisons has authority to make such decisions about whether sentences are concurrent or consecutive under §3584(a). However, Supreme Court held (by 6-3 vote) that §3584(a) does not deprive district judges of authority they possessed prior to its enactment over multiple-sentence management.

In the dissenting opinion for Monroe Ace Setser v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that federal courts do not have the authority to impose a sentence to run consecutively with an anticipated state court sentence that has not yet been imposed. He stated that this power is neither explicitly granted in 18 U.S.C §3584(a) nor can it be inferred from historical practices or common law traditions. Scalia also pointed out potential practical problems arising from such anticipatory sentencing, including situations where the expected state conviction does not occur or when its length differs significantly from what was assumed at the time of federal sentencing. In his view, these issues could lead to unfair and unpredictable results contrary to Congress's intent in creating a fair and rational sentencing system.