Perhaps the most widely publicized case out of the state's federal court system in 2017 was the prosecution and conviction of former Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. But the state's two other federal districts had no shortage of interesting cases on their dockets this year.

Here's a look at the most notable federal court decisions from 2017.

The Eastern District

The case that stole the show this year was Williams' prosecution. Williams was indicted for taking bribes, stealing money meant for his mother's nursing home care, and using campaign funds to bankroll a lavish lifestyle. He pleaded guilty to those charges midtrial.

Along with the five-year prison term, Williams was sentenced to three years' supervised release and was ordered to pay $58,000 in restitution. One of the most striking developments in the case was when Judge Paul S. Diamond ordered Williams to be jailed immediately following his guilty plea, an uncommon move in a white-collar criminal prosecution.

Williams' guilty plea came as part of a deal in which prosecutors agreed to dismiss 28 of the 29 charges against him in exchange for admitting to one count—that he took bribes, including a trip to a luxury resort in Punta Cana, from Feasterville businessman Mohammad N. Ali. In return, Williams helped Ali bypass airport security.

During trial over the summer, prosecutors portrayed Williams to the jury as a cash-strapped, corrupt politician willing to sell his power and influence for anything he could get his hands on. They showed the jury volumes of evidence including incriminating text messages between Williams and his associates; reams of financial documents detailing his inability to manage money; and perhaps most damaging, testimony from Ali, who told jurors that he cozied up to Williams in 2010 so he could gain a powerful friend.

Despite pleading guilty to a single charge, Williams still admitted to committing all the crimes he was accused of, including taking bribes from Michael Weiss, owner of Philadelphia gay bar Woody's, in exchange for official favors, stealing his mother's nursing home money, misspending campaign money on expensive dinners and parties, and taking government vehicles for personal use.

After his resignation, guilty plea and incarceration, Williams suffered another blow Oct. 19 in the form of his disbarment by the state Supreme Court, retroactive to April 13, when his law license was suspended.

Williams was Philadelphia's first black district attorney, elected in 2009 and re-elected in 2013. He served as the city's inspector general from 2005 to 2008.

The Middle District

This year, the Middle District tackled the question of whether a history of attempted suicide and past involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital were enough to prohibit gun ownership.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones of the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted judgment in favor of Michael Keyes, a former U.S. Air Force veteran and retired master trooper with the Pennsylvania State Police who sued the federal government after the state courts rejected his bid to expunge his mental health record. Keyes argued that he was unable to own guns under federal law with the committal on his record, even though he was entrusted with a service pistol while on duty as a state trooper.

Jones wrote in his opinion that Keyes—who suffered from depression and attempted to kill himself by overdosing on pills and alcohol—was not a public safety risk because he never committed any serious crimes and has not made any “unvirtuous” choices in the time since his hospitalization, which occurred over 10 years ago in the middle of a messy divorce. Jones determined that Keyes is not likely to relapse, since his troubles stemmed largely from his relationship with his ex-wife and he is no longer battling depression.

However, Jones acknowledged his ruling came at a time when mass shootings have reached epidemic proportions.

“We freely acknowledge our mindfulness of the fact that this decision is rendered in a time when our country appears awash in gun violence. Given the tenor of the times, it would be easy and indeed alluring to conclude that plaintiff lacks any recourse,” Jones said. “But to do so would be an abdication of this court's responsibility to carefully apply precedent, even when, as here, it is less than clear. Our jurisprudence and the unique facts presented guide us to the inescapable conclusion that if the Second Amendment is to mean anything, and it is beyond peradventure that it does, plaintiff is entitled to relief.”

The Western District

U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson of the Western District of Pennsylvania tackled a similar gun ownership case later in the year, also coming to the conclusion that a history of involuntary commitment to a hospital for mental health reasons is not enough to bar a person from owning firearms under federal law.

Gibson's ruling came in plaintiff Alton Franklin's lawsuit against the federal government, in which Franklin claimed he was unconstitutionally stripped of his right to bear arms because of a less-than-24-hour hospitalization for “acute psychosis,” according to Gibson's opinion.

Gibson's ruling focused on 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), the federal statute that lays out the circumstances for prohibition of firearm ownership for a person deemed “a mental defective,” and its interplay with Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act, detailing involuntary commitment for mental health reasons.

Although Franklin was committed, Gibson held that because he was not deemed a mental defective, he was not prohibited from owning guns. However, Gibson noted that the case presented deeper legal issues that he could not explore, since they were unnecessary to resolving the case at hand.

“While this narrow disposition of this matter leaves many of the specific, novel legal issues raised and argued by the parties undecided, the court deems it inappropriate to adjudicate or opine on issues—regardless of their novelty—when the examination of such issues is not necessary to fully resolve the case before it,” Gibson said.

Gibson this year also addressed an interesting, and unusual, question involving religious discrimination.

A school bus driver fired after refusing to be fingerprinted for a background check because she believed it would mean she was accepting the “mark of the devil” was allowed to move forward with her lawsuit against employer for religious discrimination.

Gibson denied Altoona Student Transportation's request to toss Bonnie F. Kaite's civil rights case. Citing the Book of Revelation in the Bible, Kaite, who worked at the company from 2001 until 2015, refused the background check on grounds that accepting the mark of the devil would deny her entry into heaven.

While Altoona Student Transportation raised concerns that not having a vetted driver under the then-newly passed state law in 2015 requiring fingerprinting could expose the company to criminal liability, the judge wrote in his opinion that Kaite had made a good enough preliminary case to move forward.

“Plaintiff states that she has a sincere religious belief that being fingerprinted constitutes the 'mark of the devil' and would prevent her from going to heaven, and that this belief conflicts with her job requirement that she undergo a background check,” Gibson said. “Plaintiff informed defendant of her sincerely held religious belief and was subsequently terminated for failing to comply with the fingerprinting requirement. Plaintiff alleged facts that give rise to a plausible claim for religious discrimination. At this early stage, nothing more is required.”

Kaite claimed that she was denied an alternative form of background checking, and Altoona Student Transportation, despite pushing for background checks for its employees, allowed at least one driver with “unreadable” fingerprints to continue working when an alternative was not available.

Her suit was filed under the religious discrimination provision found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Kaite additionally filed on grounds of retaliation and a related claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, which Gibson also allowed to move forward. The case is pending.