Multiple media outlets and liberal political figures melted down on Thursday over the news that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down universities using affirmative actions practices in college admissions. 

The court ruled 6-3 against using race as factor in admitting students into U.S. colleges on Thursday, claiming schools engaging in affirmative action are violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Activists and media personalities claimed that the decision was heartbreaking, that it favors White people at the expense of every other minority, and ushers in an era of Supreme Court decisions that could end up reinstating Jim Crow laws in the United States of America. 

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON CLASHES WITH ANTI-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LAWYER DURING SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS

Liberal commentators activists and various outlets voiced their disapproval of the ruling on Twitter shortly after it was decided.

The New York Times tweeted, "Breaking News: The Supreme Court rejected affirmative action at Harvard and UNC. The major ruling curtails race-conscious college admissions in the U.S., all but ensuring that elite institutions become whiter and more Asian and less Black and Latino."

Author Michael Harriot tried to give journalists the proper perspective on the story, tweeting, "Before you begin your thinkpiece, the Supreme Court DID NOT strike down Affirmative Action. Admission preferences for legacies, donors, employee families and special recommendations are still allowed. The Court struck down Affirmative Action For everyone except WHITE PEOPLE."

Former First Lady Michelle Obama lamented the decision in a letter she shared to the platform. Part of it claimed, "So today, my heart breaks for any young person out there who’s wondering what their future holds – and what kinds of chances will be open to them. And while I know the strength and the grit that lies inside kids who have always had to sweat a little more to the climb the same ladders, I hope and I pray that the rest of us are willing to sweat a little too."

She added, "Today is a reminder that we’ve got to do the work not just to enact policies that reflect our values of equity and fairness, but to truly make those values real in all of our schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods."

Liberal author and former White House aide Keith Boykin ripped Justice Clarence Thomas for his vote in the decision, tweeting, "Clarence Thomas benefited from affirmative action his entire life. But George Bush claimed his race had ‘nothing to do with’ his selection to succeed Thurgood Marshall. And now Thomas casts the vote to kill affirmative action for all other Black folk."

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE: JUSTICES ALITO, ROBERTS SNAP AT HARVARD LAWYER

SUPREME COURT TAKES UP RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CASE INVOLVING POSTAL WORKER WHO REFUSED TO WORK ON SUNDAY

Prominent liberal Twitter influencer "BrooklynDad_Defiant!" ripped Thomas as well, writing, "Clarence Thomas benefited from Affirmative Action in his own life, and now pulls the ladder up behind him. What a f------ disgrace."

Democrat activist Victor Shi claimed that the Supreme Court will have to answer to "young people" for the decision, stating, "BREAKING: The Supreme Court has just ended race-based affirmative action for college admissions in a 6-3 decision. Not a surprise coming from this Supreme Court, but they just messed around with young people again & they will find out."

MSNBC contributor Dean Obeidallah warned that the Supreme Court’s decision paves the way for Jim Crow laws to return. He tweeted, "Next up the GOP's Supreme ‘Court’ will strike down the Civil Rights Act to allow Jim Crow segregation to start again. Please don't dismiss this as being over the top. This so called court ended reproductive freedom, gutted the Voting Rights Act and ended affirmative action."

ABC contributor Donna Brazile told the network that it was a "very sad day." 

JUSTICES HEAR ARGUMENTS OVER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN HARVARD, UNC SUPREME COURT CASES

"I am shocked by the fact that in the majority opinion, they basically whitewashed, whitewashed the Constitution in a way that basically says that we were right all along. The 14 amendment, the clause equal protection clause were guaranteed us a colorblind society," she began. 

"It took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to eliminate those vestiges of racism and now the most effective tool, an affirmative tool, to eliminate barriers, a tool that would give us opportunity, is now weakened. So yes, the students will have to write perhaps essays that describe how this has been a long struggle, a long struggle to get to the place where they can even have a door to look at versus a door that would be left ajar for all people to get through," she said. 

She said it was not only a setback for minorities, but also "white women."

"I’m going to encourage those young people that you just heard to tell their stories, be part of the narrative. Let people know our great America story because we were making a lot of progress. And I still believe that we can make progress after this disastrous opinion," Brazile continued. 

SUPREME COURT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE: HOW CALIFORNIA SEES ITS IMPACT

A professor at Princeton and frequent MSNBC guest Eddie Glaude joined MSNBC on Thursday to react to the news as well. 

"To be honest with you, we will return to elite institutions, more specifically being the space for a particular population, for predominantly white and Asian students. We will begin to see a kind of segregated higher education landscape," he said. "I’m trying to manage my emotions, but you know, this was just one remedy, affirmative action, the only remedy to the legacy of discrimination in admissions in American higher education. Only one remedy. And so here they’ve taken it away, and so where we find ourselves is we’re going to go back to those classes where you had one, two, three. We’re already having a small percentage of Black and Brown students in elite institutions, that percentage will get even smaller."

Former prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Charles Coleman argued the ruling would limit access to the American Dream.

"When you're limiting that, particularly in many respects based off of a misunderstanding or a disingenuous conversation about race, what you’re doing is you are limiting people’s access to the American Dream, and that is something that we have not really been honest about in our discussion," he said.