Five anonymous visitors to an anti-Trump website are taking action to ensure they aren't placed on a government “enemies list.”

The website visitors, represented by lawyers from the advocacy group Public Citizen, filed a motion to intervene Monday. Each of the five anonymous intervening plaintiffs visited the website, operated by a group called DistruptJ20, “either in connection with their own political activism in opposition to then newly-elected President Donald Trump, or in a journalistic capacity,” according to the motion. DreamHost is fighting the government's search warrant for all records related to the DistruptJ20 site, which organizers used to plan protests during Trump's inauguration in Washington, D.C.

Public Citizen lawyer Paul Levy said the group wanted to represent the rights of the individuals whose information would be handed over to the government if DreamHost is forced to comply with the warrant.

“It really actually fits into a long history of our defending internet users' rights to stay anonymous when they're online, so long as they're not doing anything that's actionable,” Levy said.

A D.C. Superior Court judge issued the warrant July 12, and DreamHost refused to comply, prompting the U.S. Attorney's Office to file a motion to compel the company to do so July 28. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday before Superior Court Chief Judge Robert Morin. Levy said it's unclear how Morin will proceed with the motion and if he will allow Public Citizen lawyers to participate, though they plan to attend.

DreamHost is represented by Raymond Aghaian of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton. The company recently launched a crowdfunding campaign to help pay for its legal costs.

Levy said that while DreamHost certainly pointed to violations of the users' rights in its own brief opposing the government's motion, Public Citizen is getting involved to directly represent those users' interests. The group argues the government must show a compelling reason to issue a warrant that raises First Amendment issues such as the right to read and receive information. Levy said he doubts the government gave the court a viable reason for demanding “all records” of the site when it sought the warrant.

“It's hard for me to believe that a showing was made that the people who did no more than view this website or send comments to this website were involved in planning any sort of criminal activity,” he said.