From the implementation comment in that link (lines 143 onwards):
* This map usually acts as a binned (bucketed) hash table, but
* when bins get too large, they are transformed into bins of
* TreeNodes, each structured similarly to those in
* java.util.TreeMap. Most methods try to use normal bins, but
* relay to TreeNode methods when applicable (simply by checking
* instanceof a node). Bins of TreeNodes may be traversed and
* used like any others, but additionally support faster lookup
* when overpopulated. However, since the vast majority of bins in
* normal use are not overpopulated, checking for existence of
* tree bins may be delayed in the course of table methods.
* Tree bins (i.e., bins whose elements are all TreeNodes) are
* ordered primarily by hashCode, but in the case of ties, if two
* elements are of the same "class C implements Comparable<C>",
* type then their compareTo method is used for ordering. (We
* conservatively check generic types via reflection to validate
* this -- see method comparableClassFor). The added complexity
* of tree bins is worthwhile in providing worst-case O(log n)
* operations when keys either have distinct hashes or are
* orderable, Thus, performance degrades gracefully under
* accidental or malicious usages in which hashCode() methods
* return values that are poorly distributed, as well as those in
* which many keys share a hashCode, so long as they are also
* Comparable. (If neither of these apply, we may waste about a
* factor of two in time and space compared to taking no
* precautions. But the only known cases stem from poor user
* programming practices that are already so slow that this makes
* little difference.)
The two bolded bits.
It's bins, some of which can be TreeMaps.
Those TreeMaps are sorted by hashcode.
Consequently, even if all the bins were TreeMaps they wouldn't be sorted in any meaningful (user-friendly) way in any case.