What did the appeals court decision say?

The Supreme Court justices might have felt that the issue was adequately addressed by the appellate court and -- given no conflict between judicial districts -- there is no need for them to get involved. Perhaps they felt that there were no appealable issues. Perhaps they felt that the subject matter was not yet ripe for review & rejected it expecting at some point to be presented with a case that defines the issues more clearly. Maybe only 3 justices want to hear the appeal (it takes 4).

To label it Kafkaesque reflects an apparent lack of knowledge with regard to the supreme court functions. The Supreme Court is not required to hear every appeal that comes it way. For the most part they are allowed to pick and chose what issues they'll spend their time on.

Blaming it on the "power-hungry administration" is silly. Unless the administration has 6 justices working in lock-step to select cases, they cannot control the supreme courts agenda.